Finland offers an alternative to squandering $75 billion on “universal” pre-kindergarten as President Obama advocates — one featuring parental involvement that contrasts sharply with Head Start, the failed federal baby-sitting service he essentially wants to expand.
Writing for the PJ Media website, retired teacher Inge Kummant says Finland's “open kindergarten” serves “the birth-through-age-five crowd and their parents.” It's “low-cost, local, flexible and does appear to help prepare kids for school” — unlike Head Start, whose positive effects don't last.
Municipal governments and the Lutheran church both sponsor Finland's open kindergartens, and many families attend both. Trained teachers provide individual attention and lead stories, songs, games and crafts. Parents participate with children, provide snacks and pay about $100 per semester. Families are limited to one weekly session due to demand.
Open kindergarten surely benefits from Finland paying child-care allowances to stay-at-home parents for three years and requiring three years of employer-provided parental leave. But unlike big-government Head Start, which supplants parents, open kindergarten involves them.
Ms. Kummant asks: “Maybe the open kindergarten model offers another way for American churches, libraries, private schools and other nonprofits to reach and support families with young children?” It's a worthwhile question that liberal “universal pre-K” advocates should address before compounding Head Start's failure.
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.