Universal pre-K? It would be a huge waste that would dwarf Head Start's failure
The kind of “high quality” universal preschool continually advocated by the Obama administration and his “progressive” acolytes would be a spendthrift endeavor with no better results than ineffective Head Start.
George Mason University scholars David Armor and Sonia Sousa remind that the federal government's own Head Start study found that program's positive effects on impoverished children don't even last into kindergarten, much less into the early elementary grades.
And they note that a secondary analysis of that study “revealed no significant relationship between Head Start program quality and the major cognitive and social outcomes.
“And the long-term effects of ... Head Start programs were not statistically different from not going to preschool at all,” they write in National Affairs.
As we've said before, it's pretty much a federal baby-sitting service. And spending $75 billion on universal preschool a la Head Start would only compound a mistake that costs taxpayers $8 billion annually. Mr. Armor and Ms. Sousa instead urge funding — at 2 percent to 3 percent of Head Start's current budget — a national pre-K demonstration project involving different approaches and “a rigorous randomized evaluation that would follow participants at least into third grade.”
That would go a long way in settling the debate over the cost- and cognitive-effectiveness of pre-K “education,” while most likely avoid wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on a presidential “vision” that's doomed to fail.
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 Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- An independent Scotland? Think again
- Drilling laws: Your rights
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- U.N. Watch: The aid ingrates
- Sunday pops
- Ban felon-lobbyists? A better idea
- Chicken Littles can’t cluck away climate facts
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances