Preschool for all? Look who benefits — and who won't
It's tough to tell who's cheering louder for President Obama's proposed $70 billion-plus Preschool for All early-childhood education “investment”: the liberal intelligentsia savoring this latest pander or the public school unions that will reap its full reward.
And what of little Johnny and Susie in this glorified baby-sitting service? Academically, they're no better off than if they remain home. Studies show as much.
But when the program's funding (from cigarette taxes) inevitably falls short, there'll be an outcry that this initiative simply must be preserved — much in the same way that proponents of Head Start are fighting to preserve their turf, which has been exposed as dry and dead by the government's own analysis.
The 2012 Department of Health and Human Services study determined that children in the federal preschool program fared no better than their non-Head Start peers by the third grade. “If you look at the results, not only is there no evidence of some of the big, lofty social goals ... there's even very little evidence for the more modest educational goals,” says Shikha Dalmia, a senior analyst at the Reason Foundation.
And those preschool success stories touted by Mr. Obama? Reason took a closer look and found the evidence of education benefit to be minimal at best, The Daily Caller reports.
So, if these government preschool programs don't benefit children, who does benefit? Why, the compensated cheerleaders, of course.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: The Pa. attorney general’s credibility is gone
- The Thursday wrap
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy