Dana Goldstein writes here about New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s campaign to establish a universal program of free, public pre-kindergarten, equally available to the poor, the middle-class, and the rich.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/09/bill-de-blasios-prek-crusade/498830/
In Dana’s cover note, she wrote:
“The story is also about something much bigger—the nature of government in America. Should public services be universal, meaning even affluent people can access them, regardless of whether they could procure pre-K, college, or health care on the private market? Or should we give “free stuff” only to the poor and working class?
“This was pretty much the exact debate Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton had during the Democratic primary. De Blasio, despite being a Clinton supporter, is firmly on the side of universality. Pre-K For All subsidizes the children of bankers and the children of parents living in homeless shelters. Does its play-based pedagogy work to remedy what the mayor famously decried as “the tale of two cities”—one rich and one poor? And can debates over early childhood education ever break out of gendered thinking, in which we believe only mothers can effectively care for their own children?”
In the article, she writes:
“In 2016 there is one central debate, between the left and center-left, about the role of government in America. Can the widening gap in opportunity and life outcomes between the rich and the poor be closed using the dominant policy tools of the last 30 years: tax credits that are supposed to encourage minimum-wage work, and stigmatized, underfunded social programs that serve only the poorest of the poor, like Medicaid, food stamps, and Head Start, the federal preschool program? Or, does the country need to return to an older, and until very recently, largely unpopular idea: taxing the rich to create big, new government entitlements, like pre-k, free college, or single-payer health care—entitlements available to everyone, including the affluent who currently have little trouble procuring such services on the private market?
“This was the crux of the debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The signature Sanders policy proposal was a plan to make public college free for all. Even for the children of Donald Trump, as Clinton pointed out in one primary debate. Clinton became the Democratic Party standard-bearer, and after negotiations with Sanders, announced her own plan to make in-state public college free, but only for families earning under $125,000 per year.
“De Blasio’s Pre-K For All program is, notably, in the Sanders style: unabashedly free-for-all.
There are few places in the United States to look for big, new experiments in universal government entitlements. One of them is New York City under de Blasio. The mayor issued a late-in-the-game primary endorsement of Clinton—he was the manager of her 2000 Senate campaign—but his Pre-K For All program is, notably, in the Sanders style: unabashedly free-for-all. Some American social programs, like Medicare and Social Security, serve everyone, and have proven to be relatively popular and politically sacrosanct. Others, like Medicaid, Head Start, food stamps, and cash welfare, are available only to the destitute, and are under constant threat of budget cuts. Pre-K For All is for the poor, the rich, and everyone in between. The mayor would rather speak about the program’s educational quality than its political strategy, but if prodded, will concede, “anything that has a broad constituency will also have more sustainability.” Simply put, it is difficult for politicians to retract a benefit that the politically powerful upper-middle class enjoys.
De Blasio’s first elected office was as a school-board member in District 15, the swath of brownstone Brooklyn that includes Park Slope, where he and his wife, Chirlane McCray, lived. They sent their daughter and son to public school. His focus on pre-k reflects a longtime skepticism of some of the other education-reform enthusiasms of the last two decades, like standardized testing and charter schools. When the state of New York granted de Blasio’s predecessor as mayor, Michael Bloomberg, control of the city’s schools, Bloomberg abolished neighborhood school boards like the one on which de Blasio served. Bloomberg’s education agenda was based around the concepts of choice and competition. He opened new charter schools and gave all schools letter grades based largely on their students’ test scores. Bloomberg also created 4,000 new pre-k seats, but they were open only to the poorest children. That strategy has been the norm. In recent years, cities like Denver and San Antonio reserved new public pre-k seats for the neediest kids. Even Boston’s public pre-k program, considered a national model, does not guarantee every 4-year-old a seat.
“De Blasio wants all children, even the children of the financially secure, to benefit from public services. He speaks often about how difficult it is to afford rent, child care, and other basic necessities of life in New York City, not just for the impoverished, but also for the middle and upper-middle class. “A hedge-fund manager, maybe they’re not struggling, but the vast majority of people [are],” de Blasio told me. “The cost of living in this town has continued to go up and up, so I can’t tell you how many middle-class parents have told me what it meant to save $10,000 or $15,000” on pre-K, “how fundamental that was for their ability to live in the city.”
“In 2012, when de Blasio was serving as New York City’s public advocate, a sort of city ombudsman, his office produced a report showing a huge unmet demand for free pre-k. Only half of New York City 3- and 4-year-olds were enrolled in pre-k, either public or private. Every neighborhood had more young children than public-school pre-k spots, but in areas such as affluent brownstone Brooklyn, middle-class Bay Ridge, and immigrant-heavy Central Queens, there were as many as eight applicants per seat. The problem was a national one: Only 41 percent of American 4-year-olds, and 16 percent of 3-year-olds, are being served by publicly funded pre-k, according to the latest data.
“To expand access, de Blasio proposed a tax increase of less than 1 percent on income over $500,000. That idea became the centerpiece of his 2013 mayoral bid, a key to remedying what he decried as “the tale of two cities”: huge opportunity gaps between the super rich and everybody else. A New Yorker earning $600,000 annually would have paid an additional $530 in taxes to fund universal pre-k. This provoked outrage from the Partnership for New York City, a network of CEOs. The group’s president said the tax proposal showed a “lack of sensitivity to the city’s biggest revenue providers and job creators.”
“Many of de Blasio’s fellow progressives were skeptical such a big idea could ever become reality. Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, called de Blasio’s universal pre-k plan “non-serious,” and New York City’s teachers’ union endorsed another mayoral candidate in the Democratic primary. But regular New Yorkers liked de Blasio’s ambition. Private pre-k costs, on average, over $12,000 per year in New York City, and up to $40,000 for an elite program. (The city’s median household income is about $51,000.) Polls suggested that, along with his promise to end stop-and-frisk and his artful, optimistic embrace of his family’s biracial identity, the promise of free pre-k was why voters preferred de Blasio to his rivals. He won the election and immediately began lobbying Albany to make the idea a reality; the mayor would need the support of the state legislature to enact his pre-k funding scheme. Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democratic tax-cutter, did not want de Blasio’s tax proposal to come to a vote. Still, the mayor’s boldness had changed the terms of the debate. Cuomo, somewhat mysteriously, reached into the state budget and found $340 million per year to fund the program for five years.
“From there, the de Blasio administration managed to launch Pre-K For All in less than six months. By the program’s second school year, 2015-16, it had reached its original enrollment target. Pre-K For All serves 68 percent of the city’s 4-year-olds, and 85 percent of those who are likely to enroll in public-school kindergarten. In the city of Washington, D.C., 86 percent of all 4-year-olds and 64 percent of all 3-year-olds, are enrolled in public pre-k, outpacing New York onpercentage of children served. But D.C. first launched its universal pre-k program in 2008 and allowed six years for full implementation. In comparison, New York City has moved at remarkable speed, while serving more than five times as many students.”
Open the article to read it all and to see the links to sources.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I’m curious if the Mayor has made any headway on his other ambitious plan – to establish widespread after school programs for middle school students.
Yes! That is already starting. Public middle schools are letting their students know about the free programs – generally until 6. The nice thing is that a typical program includes homework time and help, as well as an activity.
^^^no doubt certain privileged families who happily pay for their child to experience lots of after school and weekend activities will attack de Blasio for a program that “no parent” (at least in their privileged world) cares about or wants.
This is what we are ignoring in Los Angeles: “anything that has a broad constituency will also have more sustainability.” In addition to creating two separate and unequal systems of public eduction, we are doing nothing about the white middle class leaving public schools. In my used-to-diverse neighborhood, they go to charters with smaller class sizes, freedom from bureaucracy, and buffer from “those kids”.
*used-to-be-diverse neighborhood
Karen Wolfe: what you describe is an essential feature, not a flaw, of corporate education reform.
Makes hash of their oft-repeated (although not lately) mantra that charters and choice were the “rising tide that lifts all boats.”
Translation from Rheephormish to English: charters & choice are the tsunami that swamps the vast majority of boats—which is ok as long as its OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN on those sinking ships.
Thank you for your thoughtful observation.
😎
The Composite Trump/Johnson Supporter:
Rants against poor people getting “free stuff” and “free college”, yet their kids receive full ride scholarships.
Complains about “lazy takers” working two or three jobs, while they have evenings/weekends off and vacation in Europe.
Boast “I built this business” while ignoring the generous government subsidies, low interest loans, abatements, infrastructure, and pro-business government policies at the expense of workers.
Laments workers not being “career ready” while constantly blaming teachers at the same time encouraging resources to the classroom be cut or eliminated.
Wants “less government!”, just not THEIR government.
Advocates low taxes as long as they directly benefit from the taxes they pay.
Insists on pension and Social Security reform while collecting pensions or Social Security.
Insists on “free market” solutions as long as they remain insulated from the negative outcomes.
Derides affordable health care as long as they have a health plan and remain healthy.
Attends church on Sunday but judges those less fortunate as less human. Oh, and they run you over in a road rage fury getting out of the church parking lot.
Some people don’t know how to count their blessings and still lend a hand to others that are struggling. Lots of the people on the top are clueless about what it is like as a middle class person in this country. They don’t even consider the poor other than to see them as “losers.” They have never lived like one and fail to see the hypocrisy in their own lives. Trump is a perfect example. As Bill Maher looked over fake Trump health records on his show. Under surgeries, “Trump had to have surgery as a baby to remove the silver spoon in his mouth.”
A recent Ohio poll conducted for The Ohio Media Project/WKSU found:
“Evangelical Protestants were least likely of all major groups to express concerns about poverty: less than 6 percent.”
Non-religious or non-affiliated religious easily exceeded this number as a group.
Dr. Piff of Berkley turned the “let them eat cake” hypocrisy of the elite into numbers. His studies found “upper class individuals tend to be more narcissistic and feel more entitled than their lower class peers” The idea in explored more in Keltner’s interesting book, The Power Paradox.
Piff’s work has shown, for example, that people of high social class are more likely to behave unethically and less likely to donate to charities.
Says Piff, “If wealth, both socially and psychologically, creates an island that leaves people removed from others, then contributing inroads to that island—by thinking of others as equals, going to public schools, taking the bus, or living in diverse neighborhoods—will trigger these basic empathic processes that would otherwise not be engaged.”.
World War II was a great social shift. From it, equality fostered a strong middle class and social change. But now, as the elite become increasingly sheltered and pampered, they adopt a supremacist world view and Just World rationalization. The poor and middle class get what they deserve into today’s neo-conservative movement.
Money and isolation breed contempt and also an attitude that promotes disinvestment in the “common good.”
“And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven,” St. Matthew 19:24
Robinhood.org is a NYC based foundation that estimates the economic value-
added of various social programs. You can see their take on the value of early childhood programs, among others, at this website. Start on page 117.
One of the most dismal metrics is QUALY, quality of life years. This metric enters into many of these economic projections.
I learned more than I wanted to know about economic reasoning when I tripped on this website. Calculations like these are being packaged into rationales for social impact bonds, investment opportunities in “the social sector.” These bonds are financial products rigged to promise payouts of up to 7% or more return on investment. Utah and Chicago preschool programs are being financed through SIBs which are being marketed by Goldman Sachs and backed with the deep pockets of billionaire foundations.
In a nutshell, financiers want to make a profit by fronting the costs of social services, and imposing their criteria for proper management and outcomes, with biggest bang for the buck the dominant criterion for success.
Click to access Robin%20Hood%20Metrics%20Equations_BETA_Sept-2014.pdf
I’ve been disappointed by the UPK project from the beginning. A large number of NYC schools are bursting at the seams. Year after year, we hear the same old refrain that “class size matters” and that reducing class size is parents’ #1 priori. And we hear the same old response about how it’s too expensive to make class sizes meaningfully smaller, and that a project like that would require several hundred million dollars of extra spending annually, which obviously does not exist in the budget. So Bill de Blasio goes to Albany with his education mandate and lo and behold, we’re spending an additional $400 to $500 million annually on education, not on parents’s number one priority, but on universal pre-K. In one fell swoop, we add a half-billion dollars of spending and bring tens of thousands of additional children into NYC schools that are already overcrowded. But BDB had a mandate and was elected in a massive landslide. So the lesson is that, as it turned out, UPK, not class size, was parents’ number one priority.
I completely disagree about what parents “want” and here is why:
I would bet quite a bit of money that FLERP! and every single one of FLERP!’s friends chose NOT to make their child’s very first year of any kind of structured education Kindergarten.
Back before pre-k was universal, I don’t think I met a single middle class family whose parents didn’t shell out the money for some kind of preschool/pre-k that started before Kindergarten. In fact, most of them did at least 2 years, and some sent their kids to “2”s programs and their children had a 3 full years of school experience before Kindergarten.
When FLERP! claims that pre-k is NOT parents’ #1 priority, he is talking about a very privileged group of parents who themselves pay good money for that “less than #1” priority. If it wasn’t a big priority, they would not be shelling out anywhere from $15,000 – $20,000 a year for it. They just don’t want it to be a priority for people who find shelling out that money to be difficult.
By the way, the plan for universal pre-k is to ultimately house it in centers and not part of the public school. In fact, Farina/deBlasio have a very good understanding of how crowded public schools are and if FLERP! can name a single overcrowded school that made room for universal pre-k, I would be quite interested in hearing about it. In fact, with pre-k centers, public schools that traditionally had pre-ks were able to cut back some of their classes as parents could find seats elsewhere.
I agree that class size is a big priority, but why would you assume that isn’t also a priority of the DOE? The pre-k money comes from the state. The state has plenty of money to reduce class sizes. So does the federal government.
You wonder why I post about Success Academy. One of the things that brought them to my attention was Eva Moskowitz telling a group of lawmakers that class size was unimportant. She offered proof — see her classes had large sizes and they could educate every single at-riisk child and turn them all into high achieving scholars. Guess who believed her? ALL of them!
So if you think class size matters, I suggest you take it up with some very influential charter school educators who keep insisting it does NOT. Sure, her lies are worthy of Donald Trump, but as long as a few kids are helped, who cares if she is telling the truth or not and whether many more kids suffer for those lies.
The biggest irony is that the very same charter leader who INSISTS that class size doesn’t matter (for public school kids) somehow ends up with 3rd and 4th grades that are 30 – 40% smaller than the lower grades. But that’s all good, since the missing kids are characterized was unworthy of a decent education, anyway.
Take your fight to her, not Mayor de Blasio. The Mayor did good for ALL children. Eva Moskowitz did good for the children who made her look good. Class size DOES matter and the Mayor never said it didn’t. Eva Moskowitz said that it didn’t.
And I suggest that if you have the money to pay for private pre-k and did so, you not speak for all the public school parents benefitting from it and claim they don’t want it. The only people who can claim it is not a priority are parents who kept their kids at home until Kindergarten. I suspect you don’t know many of those.
Actions speak louder than words.
You have an uncanny knack for making everything personal.
I am referring above to surveys that consistently list large class sizes as the number one concern that public school parents have. Perhaps you’ve seen them. Frankly I’ve always been skeptical of those surveys, though, given that there seems to be absolutely no political price to pay for failing to address overcrowding. As you say, actions speak louder than words. At some point we have to judge people — including parents, including Mayor de Blasio — by their actions, not their words.
I don’t pretend to speak for all public school parents. I don’t even pretend to speak for my friends and acquaintances (my fellow disgusting, very privileged group of parents) . I write about my own concerns, and I speak for myself and my children. To the best of my knowledge, you’ve never met any of us.
There are thousands of new UPK seats that were created within public school buildings. Many (probably the majority) of those schools are enrolled over capacity. I don’t know offhand exactly how much has UPK exacerbated overcrowding in those schools, but it’s certainly safe to say that it’s done nothing to help.
I won’t defend Eva Moskowitz. In fact, I wouldn’t object if the state shut down Success Academy and every other charter school in NYC tomorrow. (I may go further in that respect than you do, as I recall you writing very complimentary things about some charter schools.) But in my view, it’s very reasonable to hold the Mayor accountable for the budgets that come out of the Mayor’s office.
FLEP! The half billion dollars and tens of thousands of kids that benefit from pre-K would correspond to an average reduction in class size of about 2 students across all of NYC’s K-12 classes. It should be obvious that universal pre-K is a much better use of those resources.
It’s possible, but it’s not obvious (how do you measure the benefit?). But that’s the usual analysis — that it’s not worth spending money to reduce class sizes because the benefits aren’t big enough and the money would have a bigger effect elsewhere. If a half billion dollars a year has no obvious benefits, then we may as well admit that we’re all using Eva Moskowitz’s analysis.
FLERP!, I didn’t disagree with you that parents don’t like overcrowding.
In fact, the Mayor has addressed overcrowding. What do you think the re-zoning is all about? But when push comes to shove, parents still don’t want to leave their overcrowded (but beloved) zoned school for a new one. But de Blasio is certainly not putting that matter to rest.
Pre-k doesn’t impact class size in the way you are implying. Those schools with large class sizes usually got rid of their pre-ks long ago. If anything, having new pre-k centers would free up new rooms as ALL schools lose pre-k seats.
What new pre-k seats were added to overcrowded schools? I truly want to know. You claimed they were so I’m curious what school it was.
FLERP!, I reacted because you dismissed the desire for universal pre-k. Which is astonishing because the Mayor RAN on a specific platform to raise taxes (!) for universal pre-k. NYC citizens did not say “raise my taxes – never!”. They said “raise my taxes for something we want”. I do not understand how that could not have been more clear.
I also don’t understand how you could have so little regard for universal pre-k. You avoided my question: did you and your friends send your kids to any school before Kindergarten? What happens to the kids whose families can’t afford that?
This isn’t personal. I am just saying it appears quite hypocritical for you to say “parents don’t want pre-k” if almost every person you know was willing to shell out thousands of dollars to send their children to some kind of classes before their first day of Kindergarten.
If I am wrong, correct me. Tell me that you and your friends are like Duane Swacker and grandparents or one parent stayed home with your children until the first day of Kindergarten.
de Blasio has ACTED to address crowding and as you very well know, got huge pushback from parents who didn’t want to move to a less crowded school with all those poor kids. He is still trying. In the meantime, isn’t it a good thing that more 4 year olds are in school?
Rezoning is rearranging deck chairs. Absent inter-district busing, class sizes cannot be meaningfully reduced without massive spending increases on personnel and capital construction. Bill de Blasio has shown no interest in this, and that’s not debatable. I don’t mean to single him out in particular, because Bloomberg didn’t have any interest in it, either. And history has shown that there will always be an endless stream of interests and budget items cutting the line ahead of class size reform. UPK is just the latest example, although it is a rather spectacular one, and it depressed me to see it confirmed again that even our boldest visions for education do not involve reductions in class size.
Mayor Bloomberg allowed massive development without once thinking of public schools. I guess if you live in a rarefied world where “everyone you know” pays $30,000/year+ for private schools — as Bloomberg and his cronies did — the notion of class size mattering at all is not your concern.
Ironically, while overcrowding public schools by non-stop development without building more schools, Mayor Bloomberg enabled many charters that limited the number of students in their classes. Charters claimed unlimited demand and then said “nope we will only have 25 in a class. or 28.” Meanwhile public schools were bursting at the seams with 33 students plus in elementary school to accommodate as many students as possible instead of turning them away.
FYI — there was NO OTHER CITY IN THE STATE that decided to give free space in public schools to charters. Mayor Bloomberg did that all by himself – starting with the charter school chain that had the most money! Imagine if he had not. Imagine if every charter was located elsewhere as was the case in every other city in the state and all that space could be used for smaller classes? There was an easy solution to overcrowding. If charters had done what they were supposed to do and found their own space, there would be more space for public school kids. Look at Brooklyn Prospect, one of those “good” charters that I don’t find as completely lacking in ethics as Success Academy. Without rent subsidies, without tens of millions in donations, they pay for their own space. As did most other charters until Eva Moskowitz announced that there is plenty of room in NYC schools. By the way, her “lobbying arm”, Families for Excellent Schools has been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in a public relations campaign that essentially says you are lying through your teeth, FLERP! when you talk about overcrowded schools. FES says there is plenty of room and plenty of empty seats. And until every public school class size is 45 and every charter school class is capped at 28, they will continue to do so. Do you think their non-stop campaign helps Mayor de Blasio do something about class size? Of course not. No political will because FES says you are lying. And they and their funders own Cuomo.
If Mayor de Blasio is not replaced by a tool of the charter industry, class size WILL be addressed. I don’t understand your negativity. We have a Mayor who has spent more time thinking about public schools than we have had in the last 20 years. And you condemn him for not having smaller class sizes? Blame Albany. There IS “Class Size Matters” money that has NEVER been given to NYC schools. Blame Bloomberg. Attacking the one Mayor in the last 20 years who will actually try to make public schools better seems very odd.
“If Mayor de Blasio is not replaced by a tool of the charter industry, class size WILL be addressed.”
[spit-take]
I have no idea why you think that’s going to happen. But if you really want to be of service to the Mayor, you should try to manage parents’ expectations better. BDB will not address class sizes. Nor will Albany.
“At Harlem Success Academy Charter School, where we’ve gotten some of the best results in New York City, some classes are comparatively large because we believe our money is better spent elsewhere. In fifth grade, for example, every student gets a laptop and a Kindle with immediate access to an essentially unlimited supply of e-books. Every classroom has a Smart Board, a modern blackboard that is a touch-screen computer with high-speed Internet access. Every teacher has a laptop, video camera, access to a catalogue of lesson plans and videotaped lessons.”
See, not one mention of how the 5th grade class is notably missing many of the students who started in K. It’s all about laptops! Kindles! Videotaped lessons!
“while employees become more expensive every year, technology and intellectual property become cheaper and better. Instructional software improves, computers become more powerful, good children’s books multiply…..Overspending on class-size reduction is particularly unconscionable in tough fiscal times.”
FLERP!, if you really care about small class sizes, I suggest you take it up with the most influential “educator” in this country who says small class sizes are a big waste of money.
FLERP!, as I mentioned above, Families for Excellent Schools is calling you a liar for pretending there isn’t already plenty of space in public schools for reducing class size.
http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2016/09/letter-reveals-nuances-of-charter-space-debate-105541
“”These underutilized facilities combined for 121,807 empty seats overall. FES recently analyzed the Department of Education’s claims to reveal the abundance of unused space in public school buildings that could be shared with new charter schools.”
Is FES lying?
Hm, on the one hand, Families for Excellent Schools is calling me a liar. Obviously I can’t take that lying down. But on the other hand, I can’t say that Families for Excellent Schools is lying, because God knows I have everything invested in their reputation. This is a real pickle . . .
FLERP!,
Point taken. I apologize for the snarkiness in my reply.
When I read that article in politico, I was overcome by disgust that FES is continuing to demand that we starve public schools to benefit charters that have money to burn on PR stunts to demand even more resources and space.
No doubt their upcoming rally will make all that wasted space in public schools a big issue. Remember, over 100,000 empty seats in those wasteful, empty public schools. You will hear that ad nauseam at the rally no doubt, by the parents and kids bused in (no choice unless they want to get on the got to go list or happen to be one of the very entitled parents at UWSA, Union Square, or the other “we keep most poor kids out” charter schools where the mostly affluent parents are kowtowed to and allowed to skip rallies instead of told “my way or the highway and since your kid tests poorly, we prefer the highway.”)
I feel like FES is like Joseph McCarthy waving around their faux “investigations” into empty seats and someone like Joseph Welch needs to say to them, “Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir?”
But in truth, those people are entirely without shame. No doubt they are praying for the Trump victory that will insure their every fantasy in how to destroy public education and enrich charter schools will come true.
FLERP!, if you want a decent class size for your children, you will have to send them to a charter school. That’s the bottom line. That’s what FES is fighting for. No doubt eventually we will all capitulate to their desires. Except for the parents of the kids who they don’t want.
What do you think the re-zoning is all about? Just about trying to integrate public schools better? It’s also about trying to use resources better.
Why do you think class size isn’t a priority? I didn’t say it would be solved, but it is certainly on the radar of the current DOE as it never was under Bloomberg
It won’t be solved, and it won’t be meaningfully addressed, and the class size and utilization numbers will show that, and nobody will argue otherwise with a straight face in 2018 or 2022. For starters. But it will be wonderful to have it on the radar.
To hell with structured pre-k programs. Let the children be children.
The idea is to let children be children but provide an introduction to school. I don’t know any middle class parent who waited until Kindergarten before their child had any kind of school experience.
The only difference is that those parents paid through the noses for the privilege. Preschools in NYC can run anywhere from $10,000 – $25,000. Some cost $15,000 for your child to have 3 days/week from 9-12. That’s a privilege that many parents don’t have.
While there are always exceptions in a school system that is larger than that of entire state’s, most public pre-k is designed to be a very gentle introduction to school.
“I don’t know any middle class parent who waited until Kindergarten before their child had any kind of school experience.”
Mine and all my friends parents did. I also didn’t have my kids in Pre-K programs, but I had my mom who helped to take care of her many grandchildren. Quite a few of my friends, many of whom could have easily afforded it, didn’t use any Pre-K services. And the mentioned examples are all middle class folks, although now a couple of my friends have managed to get to the next rung up on the SES ladder, but are certainly nowhere near the top of the SES.
Again, to hell with Pre-K. It’s not needed, except as it should be and that would be as a concentrated baby sitting function. (Yes I know all about Pre-K pedagogy and I find it to be nonsense) Let the kids be kids. There will be far too much time in the future where they will be subjected to the “grind”.
Your very first day of any kind of school ever was in Kindergarten?
Pre-k doesn’t have to be a “grind”. My kid went and loved it and did fun hands on activities, lots of play, lots of making friends. What do you think the alternative is in the city? Letting 4 year olds “free” to play in the park alone and hope they don’t wander off? Hiring a private sitter? Moms staying at home who spend their time making sure their child is engaged in “unstructured” play in their tiny apartment and not watching tv?
Paid daycare?
Grandparents who can afford to move to NYC and spend their time doing child care and are healthy and active enough to cart the child to public parks and museums all day so they can free range play? (And try letting your child free range at museums?)
Duane, I would love to hear how you would imagine a typical week in a NYC 4 year old’s life and how it works? And by the way, children’s experience in pre-k is NOT “baby sitting”. That’s why parents with full time nannies ALSO pay for those nannies to sit around while the child is attending 3s AND 4s programs.
Again, how does that 4 year old spend his time in NYC? And who is getting paid to have him leave his small apartment to do these things you imagine they do?
Have no answers for you on those questions about NYC. My experiences have been in rural/suburban or rural areas. So I can only talk of that. As it was the mother of my children and I chose to work such that she could get the kids up and off to where ever they needed to go, which, as far as pre-school age meant to stay during the day with my mom. I would then pick them up in the afternoon and head home, do dinner and all the other attendant things of raising kids. Yes, it involved a fair amount of time to get them to and fro but I certainly preferred my mom to a pre-k setting.
But again I have no clue what resources, other than family, that one may access in NYC. Folks choose to live in crowded, cramped apartments, well, so be it. It is their choice to do so and then figure out what they need to do for themselves and their family.
Thanks for you honest reply.
Perhaps urban neighborhoods are different. And hopefully you recognize that the happy circumstance that allowed your mother to be free to watch your 4 year old children and presumably do more than have them watch television all day is not the norm.
I still believe if you poll your friends and acquaintances, you will find that the majority of their children did not wait until the first day of Kindergarten to have any kind of school experience.
I grew up in the 60s and nearly every kid I know went to some kind of preschool. In the suburbs not in NY State. The notion of kids having preschool before Kindergarten is more than 50 years old.
The only difference now is whether it is reserved just for the wealthy, or should be something for all kids.
Posting again – sorry for the long narrow post above that is so hard to read:
Duane,
How did those kids spend their days before they were 5? Their very first day of any kind of school ever was in Kindergarten?
Pre-k doesn’t have to be a “grind”. My kid went and loved it and did fun hands on activities, lots of play, lots of making friends. What do you think the alternative is in the city? Letting 4 year olds “free” to play in the park alone and hope they don’t wander off? Hiring a private sitter who will constantly engage them? Moms staying at home who spend their time making sure their child is engaged in “unstructured” play in their tiny apartment and not watching tv?
Paid daycare?
Grandparents who can afford to move to NYC and spend their time doing child care and are healthy and active enough to cart the child to public parks and museums all day so they can free range play? (And try letting your child free range at museums!)
Duane, I would love to hear how you would imagine a typical week in a NYC 4 year old’s life and how it works and who is doing it.
By the way, children’s experience in pre-k is NOT “baby sitting”. That’s why parents with full time nannies ALSO pay for those nannies to sit around while the child is attending 3s AND 4s programs.
Again, how does that 4 year old spend his time in NYC? And who is getting paid to have him leave his small apartment to do these things you imagine they do?
Maybe there was a mention I missed, but is de Blasio’s vision connected to the PAY FOR SUCCESS part of ESSA?
I have conflicted feelings about pre-k. Ideally, young children should spend a lot of time with their families playing and growing. Kndergarten used to be the pre-school experience. In Utah, there is no compulsory law for kindregarten students. Kindergarten used to be about adjusting to entering school. It was play based with lots of the arts included. It has moved to the new first grade in the last few decades. I would be less concerned about pre-k if it remained play based and developmentally appropriate. Just because some children can and do learn to read early doesn’t mean that teaching this skill early is best practice. To force 3 and 4 year olds into early acedemics can be damaging. We don’t force all children to walk at 9 months even though some children do. Nor do we say that children who learn to walk at 18 months are failures. We see this as being within the parameters of normal development. But now if a child isn’t reading before six they are labeled as failures. This is far below the known and accepted developmental norm as between 4 and 8. Why do we want or need to force young children into this nightmare? Unless there is abuse or neglect, why are we so eager to place our children under so much stress and scrutiny? It is disruptive to parent/child relationships. It can be damaging to children’s growing sense of confidence and worth. It would be better to wait. We need to support families. This is the best place for young children to develop. When this is not possible pre-schools should echo what a child would experience at home with their families.