I love Pre-k and what it has done for my kids, builds social skills, and readiness for kindergarden. I currenlty have my 4 yr old in pre-k and thankfully so he was diagnosed with a speech problem. Imagine had he not gone to school this problem would have been undetected till kindergarden. He is now pronouncing all his ending sounds and is understandable to others. I am fully aware of the deficit this country is in but not having pre-k is not what should be cut. I have paid and continue to pay for my kids to be in pre-k which some months were rough but our kids our the future and I want my kids to get as much education as they can because they are our future. My older was in a private pre-school, I wanted him to go to school across from where I work so I had to have him in a lottery and cross my fingers that my kid was chosen, well he was and the teacher made a comment " She liked getting kids that were already in pre-school they were more prepared and the trasnisition was easier." I felt good that I sacrificed to have him in school. I have my 4 yr old in pre-school and he has just blossemed, he was so shy always wanting only to be around me. (that was hard seeing as I am a working mom) but he got through it and now I will be doing the same thing putting him in a lottery to have him at the same school as my older son.(hopefully they will chose his name) Like I stated before I am a working mom, if I am going to pay someone to watch my child I'd rather it be a school at least I know that he is in a learning envrionment. The STATE needs to look at other programs that they fund before thinking of cutting any pre-K ones.

Yes! This is such an important part of getting a head-start for all children's school success. I am a parent and a foster/ adoptive parent. I have not had one child who did not benefit from the preschool program. It sets up the children... and parents for early success as well as teaching much needed social skills. For the kids and the parents!

This whole thing about universal preK is a moot point. Tax revenue is going to be WAY WAY down next year, those nasty bailouts are not going to go away, and frankly we don't have the finances for this kind of stuff.

trooper,

I've never seen a better phrasing to my child rearing philosophy. Thank you.

I think it is important to consider the relationship which exists between life skills and education. What is being taught in schools are skills that children will need to master in order to have healthy and productive lives. Think about it, we use reading and math, science, and history - in the most basic of everyday activities. Whether it is following a recipe,obeying the law, painting a room, or even planting a garden... we need to be able to read , perform basic calculations, and follow rules - in addition to knowing about colors, shapes, sizes, and textures. Parents who have the time to spend with their children can be the most valuable component in information acquisition. A skilled parent, not only provides information, but demonstrates its use in everyday life to their children.
For those parents who are unable to spend crucial time with their children in developing and expanding this necessary base - preschool can be a very good thing. However, I firmly believe, nothing ever replaces healthy bonding/separation, and socialization skills provided by parents to their children. Confident, secure, and nurtured children can learn everyday of their lives. Regardless, if it is in a classroom, or living room - it makes no difference. If children have the necessary entering behaviors and skills, the work of the teacher becomes advancing children even further. However, in many instances, this is not the case. Preschool should be available as a resource - not as a replacement, nor as a requirement.

I think that pre- kindergarten starts at age 5. I feel like computers are a great learning tool for our children. I am a stay at home mom and still taught my children with the computer. My children were on the computer playing with phonics at the age of 3. Now they are developing their own web sites. Technology is beneficial to every child. In todays world, if you are not educated in computer skills it's hard to be successful. I just want the best for my children.

I have to say I disagree with public pre-school. The government can't straighten out the current grades they are mandateing our kids to go through right now. They integrate behavioral and learning disabled students into the mainstream classrooms providing minimal (if any) assistance to the teachers, leaving them to fend for themselves. This hurts the general school population. The last thing we need are 3 and 4 year olds in the public school system.

If children are behind entering kindergarten and they do not have a learning disability, it is because of parenting. The television, computers and videogames cannot be babysitters. Parents need to take the time to teach their children. Children are sponges, they can retain huge amounts of information. I bet if you questioned some of those children that are entering kindergarten "behind" about their computer, television or video games, they probably know more about those items than we as adults do.
Parents need to take the initiative to teach their children academically, morally and spiritually. It is not the governments job to teach our children everything, it is their job to help us, as parents, give our children the best education they can get.
I completely understand when parents say they are busy. I work a full-time and a part-time job and I still manage to sit with my children and eat dinner (even if it's delivery), to do homework with them, read to them, bathe them and rock them before bed (all 3 of them). I run a tight ship to keep things as organized as possible but my children thrive from it. All of my children are active in cheering, dance and/or swimming and we still make it to church almost every Sunday. It can all be done with a little time management, and a lot of prayers and love.
I hope this answered the question

fattyman - While I cannot speak for other parents, I can certainly attest to my own pre-primary school involvement with my children. I did not need "parent training" to know that my children needed basic academic fundamentals preparation starting at home, beginning well before I enrolled them into the public education system. If so many children are "behind" when entering pre-school or kindergarten programs, does that absolutely neccesitate forcing mandatory public education of all children starting with pre-school? I think not.

We tread upon the dangerous territory of giving up our American civil liberties, guaranteed by our Constitution, when we begin to accept increasing government dictatorship of child-rearing and educational choices. Would you prefer your own children be forced into a system of education that you did not personally feel was best for them?

For my own part, I know (not just "opine") that my own children are better off for having the strong educational guidance and advocacy of my husband and I. We have encouraged both of our sons to pursue their own interests, develop critical thinking skills, and actively question and debate "facts" presented to them well above and beyond what the public education system has offered to them from the time they were babies. For this reason, above all others, they are both achieving academically ahead the majority of their peers. Without our involvement, I also know that my oldest son, who has AD/HD, would have met with academic failure by the end of Grade 4, if left solely to the mercies of the dysfunctional assessments and directions of his former elementary school educators. To successfully alter this course, my husband and I had to intervene, advocate for him, and enroll him and his younger brother into a school with far more enlightened educators. Had we the resources to provide homeschooling, we would have done so. However, lacking this capability, our oldest son and his brother have thrived as a direct result of our involvement and advocacy for their educational needs.

Frankly, there will always be "good" parents and "poor" parents, along with quite a few parents that fall somewhere in the middle. There will also always be "good" educators, "poor" educators, and many that fall into the median. Government mandates cannot "cure" this problem. However, offering opportunities and funding of better "choices" for meaninful education of our children, as well as better funding, training, and incentives for their educators, can go a long ways toward improving this situation, particularly if parental involvement is more fully enlisted and encouraged. This is not currently the case, because although many educators and administrators believe they want and encourage parental involvement, too often this involvement is scripted to the needs and dictates of the educators and administrators vs. the needs of the parents and children.

I totally agree with fattyman.

The problem we encounter with today's educational system is that preschool has really replaced what kindergarten used to be and now K is what 1st grade used to be, educationally. So, even though we can say that children should be taught at home and they can get play dates etc, the realities of the situation are, that the children who haven't gone to preschool or haven't had exposure to letters, numbers, colors, shapes etc before K are really behind before they even get started.

I did send my son to preschool mostly for the socialization aspects because he is an only child and was starving for peer interaction. I am in education (work with preschool primarily) and I did take the time and effort to get him educationally prepared but he needed the exposure to other adults and kids (he was very shy and didn't really have good social skills and spent most of his time with dad and grandma). I see a lot of kids coming into the Head Start setting who haven't had any prior exposure to what most of us take for granted as being common everyday things such as reading books or coloring. No matter what you teach parents in a parenting class, it doesn't mean anything is going to get carried over into the home setting. That is reality. I see it everyday.

phgcss,

How much experience do we need to teach a "pre-schooler" basic numbers, letters, and shapes?! Time is money for everybody these days. Question is how we prioritize our time to be with our children. I like healthy's idea of hiring someone to cook or clean so we can spend more time with the children. I dont think spending time with your child at home will scar him for life!

phgcss, I understand time limitations; we all have them, as did our parents and grandparents. Saying TIME is the issue just reiterates the fact that many parents today want preschool-daycare/someone else to raise their kids. They enjoy the "act" of creating a child, then realize afterwards that it's a lifelong expensive responsibility.
Wouldn't it make more sense to hire someone to do household chores like cooking and shopping, and have parents spend time with their own children?

This is in reply to 'healthy11''s comments. Its not just a matter of parents knowledge and skills to teach their kids in preschool age, basically TIME is an issue. We are usually so occupied with our household and other chores that we don't get enough time with our kids that we can teach them about shapes, numbers, letters, colors, coloring, drawing, singing, dancing, exercising, playing, reading books,... the list goes on. Its basically a matter of devotion of your time. Since we cannot come up with 3-4 hours of free time on a regular basis, so we think that our kids will be better off in preschools. There they will learn whatever they need to. Also, there's a way you need to teach preschoolers. We as adults can sometime get impatient or angry if our kids are not getting what we are trying to teach them, but the teachers have all the qualification and experience to handle these situations. We as parents are inexperienced teachers(most of us) and I think that we should not spoil the future of our children by trying to be good teachers when so many experienced teachers are around. Ofcourse, we are always there at home to help them with their reading, learning, assignments, projects and homework. Also, kids learn things fast when they see others of their age doing the same thing. Regarding the social skills, playmates do help but what about those kids who doesn't have any playmates. Not every kid has someone to play with. Also, for kids who come from different cultures or backgrounds, school setting is best to learn language and for infusion of different cultures.

I believe children develop learning skills when they are very young.. If you help develop them early in life, it makes learning much easier for the child in his future.I dont think that putting a child in preschool is forcing them to grow up to fast. They say knowledge is power. I'm not saying this to brag(well maybe a little boasting) My children were doing phonics on the computer at age three. I have one in 10th and one in 7th they are still on honor roll. I always gave my children toys that would challenge them. Learning skills are developed early,so as a parent I think it is our job if we set our children up to succeed or fail.

Not everyone can teach, much less, teach well. I am amazed at the wonderful job these teachers do. Preschool also helps teach social skills and from most of the schools I have seen it looks pretty fun.

You can get statistics to fit your every need on the net. But in some instances the actual child shows signs of wanting something more. They can learn that there are different kinds of teachers that teach different ways. Not everyone does it like mom & dad... and that is OK.

If most parents don't have even the knowledge and abilities to teach their 3 and 4-year-olds "basis skills," like shapes, colors, their name, a few numbers and letters, and we have to count on the government to provide preschools do it, then the U.S. really is in decline. A child's social skills can be developed through playmates, and doesn't require formal preschool, either.

As was stated much earlier in the replies to this discussion, if moms and dads lack basic child-rearing skills and abilities, THEY should be the ones provided with parenting classes. Otherwise, it seems as if this argument really boils down to parents wanting affordable government-provided daycare.

Ofcourse, the time the child spends at home is invaluable, but not every parent can develop all the skills in their child while making him/her just sit at home. Some parents do have the knowledge and skills to home school their kids, but majority of the parents don't. There is no pressure on parents that they have to send their kids to school. If they believe that they can do a better job than sending their kids to school, then they don't have to. Same goes with preschool. Whether state government provides preschool or not, it won't be compulsory for any parent. Everything will still remain the same. The only difference would be that since state will be providing it, it will have some common grounds and basis(in terms of curriculum, activities, skills taught, etc.)and it will be affordable. Parents who now think that preschools are not meant for their kids, can still think the same way after this transition. This change will be for majority of people who do send their kids to preschools and pay huge amount of fees.

NO. Earlier academics has done the opposite to help children academically, let alone creatively, in the end. Read Play = Learning or Einstein Never Used Flash Cards. Read Magical Parent Magical Child by Mendizza and Pearce. Find out why Europe likes Waldorf and Montessori and why coercive education turns kids off to learning. Find out why dwindling outside play time and time with Mother is hurting our kids and the future of our culture. If you teach young ones in a way similar to Waldorf and the best of Montessori, then great. But, if you're just shooting for an arbitrary bar--the bar being "get ready for Kindergarten"--you're just transferring your fear to your child. Academics is only ONE facet of development. As a mom of a 4 year old and a 2 year old I'm primarily concerned with emotional intelligence. Relationship to the caregiver is the primary factor in how kids learn. We need to be supporting mothering and fathering instead of encouraging and setting a standard for other people to raise children. State sponsored preschools will send the message to people that it's what we "should" do. We should be asking not what CAN we do but what SHOULD we do? We can cram them full of info, but do the methods of cramming reduce the total potential? How can we make every mother a GUIDE to their own young child? Educate parents and you won't have to make the State the parent. Parents just need more information. All that said, I know some people do need day care because they have to work outside the home. Why not give state funded scholarships to those who need it? Why not begin by defining the problem (what is the problem again??) and then open up all the possible answers? If the problem is that American children are falling behind the world, why not look at the trends around the world? Again, let's look at what earlier and earlier academics have brought to us already.

I think that would be a wonderful idea. Nowadays, the good preschools are very less and they get filled up very fast. So most of the parents end up sending their kids to preschools which charge a lot. Also, many people opt not to send their kids to preschools at all(for whatever reasons). These are the kids who don't learn everything they should know by the time they go to kindergarten. If they won't be prepared for kindergarten, then they might have to wait another year. What a waste of year when the child could have learned all those skills and concepts in preschool. So making preschool a part of public schools will make a lot of difference and for the good(esp. the kids who are going to be our future citizens).

I have heard about several reports that children in our country are behind educationally. It would only make sense to start them in a structured preschool. Educators for that age should know how to infuse fun with a little "kindergarten prep".

School now, in general, seems a lot more interesting and fun than it did "back in the day."

The original reason my son went to preschool was because I am a single mother and needed childcare. I was surprised and thrilled to find out that his school was actually teaching him things, ABC's, numbers, a little music, etc.

When it came time to enroll him in Kindergarten, I went to the parent orientation in July. The principal announced that all children coming in September had to already be proficient in ABC and had to be able to count to 10. Many of the parents turned a nice shade of green/white and visibly gulped, as it was plain to see that these parents were going to have to prepare their children in just two months.

I think that preschool should be part of the public school program. Children who do not have access to preschool for whatever financial reasons, are coming into Kinder at a disadvantage that can last for the rest of their lives.

Little children can be mean to eachother, and little feelings are easily hurt. Children who are picked on because they are not prepared, might think that brawn is a good replacement for brains. Others may have their self-esteem plummet.

Of course, a lot of this is dependant on parents. Even with preschool, parents who do not encourage learning will have problems.

yes

Preschool in TN is for low income or children with possible developmental delays. There is also HeadStart.
But I really think that it is a resource that should be open to all children with the main focus or concentration being on the developmentally delayed students. They should receive the most guidence and help.

really ,great comment

bajones4 - my heart goes out to you and your husband. Middle school teachers have the most difficult and thankless job of all. It takes a special kind of strength to spend all day, 5 days a week, teaching classrooms full of adolescent kids (I have only one adolescent, so far, and that's enough to drive me crazy by the end of the day!). : )

It is my most fervent hope and prayer that education can begin to take a greater priority in our country, and that both our voters and our nation's leaders can begin to realize that without stronger funding and support of the education of our future citizens and leaders, we will surely fall much faster as a nation than we were ever able to rise!

I don't see any problem with providing enriching and/or educational daycare programs. In fact, many of them are available in our area. My concern is twofold; one - increasing the tax burden on already over-taxed citizens for an already under-par public education system-yes, I have a personal interest because my family pays extremely high taxes for our public education system, which we do not partake in because they do not meet our personal standards. In addition we pay for private schooling on top of that (it is a personal choice, but we don't have access to a voucher system or other personal choice alternative); two - in my experience parents seeking free daycare are not traditionally concerned about their child's behavior or performance (not that this would be an issue in pre-school) resulting in an ineffective 'educational' environment in the long run... i.e. a daycare situation where the teachers are just doing their best to get through the day while being responsible for the safety of their students. I have personal experience with this at the school age level currently. Although I cannot make this generalization for all areas of the country, I'd prefer not to have taxes raised for this purpose.

As a parent of three grown children 18-23 years I feel more responsibility is being put on the teachers and schools and less on the parents. I stayed home and scrapped to raise our children. I went to work, outside of doing day care at home, when my daughter was eight. I have little in my retirement but that is the choice I made for my family.

My husband is an middle school educator. This means after a masters and 32 year of teaching in the UK and USA (23 years) he is still making less than $50.000. I bring this up because teachers are the answers to everyone educational needed but they are not compensated by our society. This is the only profession I know that loses pay changing districts in Arizona after five years. Many people do not realize this. If you change districts, you are not compensated for all these years of experience. Many middle schools give teachers an hour plan so many have hour(s) of work to complete at home to educate the students. Show more support for teachers in pay raises, help with their futher education (80% like big corporations provide their emploees). Show how they are appreciated!

RE: "Theses factors are critical in supporting why it is the responsibility of of both the local as well as state school district to support as well as forcefully mandate early childhood education on both the Headstart and pre School level."
---------------------------------------------------------------While I understand from several perspectives how an experienced educator with a background in early childhood education would feel strongly about enforcing a state-mandated pre-school program for all children, I would like to point out that in my own humble opinion, it is important to remember that a child's first and MOST IMPORTANT teachers are his or her parents.

While I can agree that there may unfortunately be parents who are not adequate to the task of providing an adequate early childhood education for their young children, I for one am a responsible and educated parent who has been deeply involved in my own children's education from the time they were babies. Not only am I aware that the state and federal government funds going towards early childhood education are coming from the hard-earned tax dollars of parents like me, but also I am aware that I was successfully able to prepare my own children for Kindergarten well enough that they were reading, thinking, and conversing beyond the level of the majority of their peers by the time they entered Kindergarten. In fact, for my youngest, we found that my husband and I had been able to prepare him for school well enough that public school Kindergarten academics was almost non-essential for him. With the exception of needing Kindergarten to learn necessary social interaction skills appropriate for his age, I was presented with evidence throughout his Kindergarten year that academically he was more in line with first grade learners (and he was the youngest in his class - so much for the "ages and stages" theory!).

As a parent who continues to take interest in and personal responsibility for my children's education, I am truly offended by assumptions on the part of some educators that it is OK to dictate to and even take over my parental rights to providing early childhood education to my own children in favor of the guidance an often sadly lacking public education system.

Again, I realize that not all parents are as involved with their children's education as my husband and I are and have been. But for those of us who are, I feel strongly that we should have the option to choose to educate our children as we feel is best (to include the option of home-schooling). Frankly, as others have stated here, I would like to have been able to enroll my children in full-time Kindergarten without having to shell out thousands of dollars for the privilege of a full-day class. Let's get public school Kindergarten offerings, General Education, and Special Education curriculums straightened-out before we start enacting mandatory legislation regarding pre-school in the public education system.

Pre-school for all is essential given the current reading, writing and math readiness requirements for Kindergarten, and the academic gap between children from higher and lower income families. Chicago has a 2 1/2 hour, 5-days per week pre-school for all program for 3 and 4 year olds. There are not enough for all pre-K children to attend and not practical for someone looking for daycare. At-risk children (poverty, special needs, 4 year olds) are given priority then spaces are open first come, first served. Great program, my 4 year old is learning to sight read, add, write his name, is starting to write other words and is learning how to socialize with peers (my primary purpose for seeking out a pre-K program). The teachers present concepts in a fun way, so it seems like play to the children-- they all get at least exposure and some go further, learning basic skills in reading, writing or adding. It is mostly a play-based program. I think my child would learn these skills at home if not at pre-K, however, I don't think that is true of some of his classmates, so I'm glad these programs exist and would like to see them more accessible to more children. (I should add that my son attends a school where many students come from low income families -- more than 90% of the children qualify for free or reduced lunches.)

In response to a previous post: why would it be a problem to provide enrichment and education to a child of a parent just seeking a free babysitter?

Wow, this is a little dicey, considering the state of our current public school system in the U.S. (as a general rule). Then there are many that would simply utilize this service as 'day care'. My personal opinion is that I need to see more value in how my tax dollars are being used currently, as opposed to requesting more tax dollars to add onto an already uncontrollable "issue." As far as my opinion on pre-school, I did send both of my children to a 1/2 day, 3 day a week program, which was more than adequate to teach them the basics needed at that age, plus pre-reading and social skills. Also in consideration is the fact that their classes were very small (between 6 and 10 children). I don't trust the public system to control class size, which I believe is imperative at that age (for a learning environment). Again you're getting into a daycare-type situation... on taxpayer dollars. Like all wonderful ideas, there's a fine line when considering their implementation.

I was born and raised in NY (Brooklyn) and lived there for 34 years. I now live in FL and was quite surprised to find out that in order for your child to receive a Pre-K Diploma, you have to obtain a voucher and apply to a certified school (elementary or pre-school) that offers the program. The process is like buying concert tickets at a box office (not on-line) for a hot event. Yes, you have to get on line early in the morning. On top of that you have to hope that there is enough room for your child at the institution of your choice. Vouchers are available on a first come first serve basis. This is frustrating to me because, most if not all, NY elementary schools have pre-k programs, so you and your child have more options in education venues. Since my son is currently in a great pre-K program, I will not bother to get the voucher for him for the summer of 2009. Thanks to the hard work of his teachers and my work at home, he is reading, doing some math, knows his colors basic shapes, numbers up to 100 and more at age 4. This education should be offered free to all 3 - 4 year olds as a national standard at all public elementary schools.

I believe that preschool is fine in small amounts, but quite frankly, the first 5 years should be focused on the parent/child relationship. There is plenty of time once the child starts school for parents to get time for themselves. After all, why have children at all if you are just going to dump them off at preschool or day care?

From personal as well as inter-personal experience, The Esquire Abby Phelps believes that No Child should be left behind to struggle independently of themselves or made to emancipate their own pursuits of ascribing to educational excellence and achievement. It is the collaboartive efforts of local as well as state educational governing institutions to provide structured emphasis upon the overall learning environment by rendering both technical as well as funding support to public- as well as public charter school acacdemies. These types of schools because of either their geographical location or poverty demographics always require additional assistance within these areas so that the elemental as well as superficial needs of both students as well as their families can be met. Theses factors are critical in supporting why it is the responsibility of of both the local as well as state school district to support as well as forcefully mandate early childhood education on both the Headstart and pre School level. I have over five years of experience in early childhood education. I have also served on the OSPRY Assessment for Headstart, and it works phenomenally! Not only is such a learning experience academically invigoration, it is socially enriching as well because it gives students the overall opportunity to adapt to others and to create meaningful relationships among their own age-peer groups. So it is in my most humble assertion, I compel and command that the state fund as well as support these crucial early childhood programs. The academic survival of our students depends upon it!

Yes, preschool is important for all children. BUT, FIRST I believe full-time kindergarten should be made available and paid for, for all children. It is not available for all children in our State (WA). My daughter's public school held a lottery to get your child in full-time Kindergarten and if you get in you pay the difference between part-time and full-time. Seems to me it would be a good idea to make available full-time Kindergarten to all and then worry about funding for Pre-school.

Well , just so I get my opportunity to speak. I am voting for Mccain just in case anyone was wondering.

NY does provide "Universal Preschool" (UPK) classes in many districts which are typically staffed by the district. They are optional and open to all (regardless of income) and many are chosen by "lottery". These are co-existing in our county along with Head Start (income guidelines) and many private preschools so any family who wants to send their child to preschool can typically do so in our area. I am totally in favor of a preschool experience for children prior to entry into kindergarten due to the highly academic nature of kindergarten however I do think that preschool should be a half day and should stress the socialization aspects more than the academics. It is important for kids to be able to follow directions and learn to "share" and "play nice" and be able to sit and listen to a story prior to entering a more structured academic setting in the full day kindergartens that are most common today.

Yes I think preschool should be for all 3 & 4 year olds who can't go to school yet so they can get used to the whole school thing in general. That way it is not hard for them and becuse most familys can't afford a preschool their should be one just like real school.

I think somewhere between keeping all preschoolers in a home environment - and sending them all off to school - lies a delicate balance. Children benefit from the nuturing of staying in the home environment with some opportunity for group socialization and early group learning - part time. It shouldn't be all or nothing!

By the way, I'm not voting for McCain (in case anyone was wondering, based upon my previous reply).

As long as it was not "mandated", I would be fine with such an offering as an available "option". However, our state government (and many others) has badly mangled our current public education system, and I would be very wary of allowing the state to "provide" FAPE for pre-schoolers. If not from the very start of such a program, surely soon after the state would start pushing for mandatory pre-school attendance, and then parents could be held liable for truancy for refusing to comply. Preposterous!

I'm sorry, but I would not be in favor of handing a pre-K child over for a 1/2 or full day to public educators, who in too many instances are already mis-educating our K-12 Gen Ed and Special Ed kids. I think a child needs to have time at home just being a child until at least Kindergarten.

monimos, By the states definition, your children only qualify if you are low income and cannot speak english. Which means our great state of Texas is hindering some american children from getting the same opportunity as non american. Which to me is very frusterating. I'm not saying our children should come first, but should treat them all equal, not be penalized.

After reading curlysue, I would have to ask what is the state's definition of "all". If income guidelines are going to be used then I don't believe that it is fair. Many times what we make on paper and what actually comes into the home is very different. Every child should have the opportunity to go to preschool if it is the parent's desire.

Yes, it's about time. I am a PreK Teacher.

I can only speak about my own experience. I am blessed with two very bright children. I sent my oldest to a private school for pre-k. I wanted to let my youngest go to pre-k at a public school. I was informed that unless we were low income or couldn't speak english there was not a chance. I was very angry. I do pay taxes and i believe that my child should have the same opportunities as any other child. I wasn't looking for a babysitter since I have enjoyed being a stay at home mom for 16 years. This is my argument. I feel my child was being punished because we weren't poor and she could speak english. I said before I believe all children should have the same opportunities in america. Pre-k should be allowed by age not pay!

I'm confused Seremen- no condition is permanent statement. My children, father,brother and myself have Learning Disabilites and it is definately permanent.

Also to clarify: In my opinion Pre-school is not education. It is social interaction that can be achieved the same way as if they have play dates or take a tiny tots ballet class etc. Are children who only have playdates more ready to read by grade 3? Where's the studies for that. Is there a study to correlate readiness to read by grade 3 to maternity leave length. What if the government paid for madatory 12 month maternity leave like many other countries offer. Wouldn't the children flourish that way also.
Also let us remember in this argument this isn't about a pre-school for children with pre-diagnosed learning issues but "universal" pre-school for everyone on the tax payers dime.

twgage- I loved your post

It is important to consider both short and long term costs of education. We are also talking about more than just dollars. Any child who leaves the system without the necessary skills to earn a living, and follow rules of society, will cost more to sustain than the child who receives appropriate interventions early on.

The state of OK is doing a good job to meet the need of her educational system and a free preschool is working.

Yes! I strongly support spending $20,000.00 and up for a special education child and also favour less than $3,000.00 for a child in preschool. These figures stress fairness based on the need of each child and erase any special or the same treatment.

I think all children have special needs depend on how each family defines the term "special needs."
I am humble to be an advocate for children in need and people with special needs.

Members, I do not play games with the above groups of people because "no condition is permanent." Who knows what this Friday, 10/31/08 holds.

I think it should be available for all it they choose to put their child in preschool. Where I live they have Headstart for the lower income families, But also this year have started preschool in most of the public schools. Unfortunatley they have made it to where (because it is state funded) you have to be lower income to qualify to go to prek. To me this is unfair, they already have programs in effect for low income familes, so people like me who make a little bit more money than low income can not even put there child in prek. I have to continue to pay child care for atleast another year!!

While longitudinal studies, like the Abecedarian Project, can point out possible correlations, everyone should be aware that an apparent correlation does NOT indicate a cause-and-effect relationship. Actually "proving" a cause-and-effect relationship is nearly impossible within the realm of social sciences.

In the case of this study, the first question that would undercut the validity is whether the factors that contributed to the enrollment of those certain children as opposed to those who were not enrolled were the more influential in determining the scores on acheivement tests, likelihood of attending a four year college, and the rate of teen pregnancy (which would only be applicable to an average of *half* of the study participants, since the study indicated it was a random sampling.)

The study summary itself states "Although we believe the results of both studies are extremely important, we would caution that both interventions were demonstration projects, and we do not yet know if the results can be replicated on a broader scale in typical classroom settings." (The other study referred to is the "Perry Preschool Project.")

A quick summary can be found here:
www.evidencebasedprograms.org/Default.aspx?tabid=33
The project's website is here:
www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/

To me, this is similar to the over-simplication of "The family that eats/plays/prays/etc together stays together." Every study done would show that to be true if comparing random samples of families WITHOUT FIRST INTERFERING with the natural actions of the families.
Once something is forcibly changed, the study becomes invalid.

I would like to know further details of why and how the children got enrolled into the preschool programs that were part of the study.

My first suspicion is that the parents and guardians of the children that were enrolled were much more actively involved with their children and/or had much higher expectations and hopes for their kids.
This would not be so easy to demonstrate in a study, though. But, it would get closer to the root of the issue.

As a parent of a Special Needs child I can not begin to tell you the value of the preschool program my son attended. Instead of choosing to go the Head Start in our community, we opted to have him go to the preschool program provided at one the elementary schools in our district. They have two classrooms, with four classes (two morning, two afternoon). They also have a speech pathologist and two aids for each class. He started preschool the week he turned three, he was in the early intervention program prior. The socialization and attentions to his needs were their priority. He can not talk (Speech Apraxia) but they helped him learn to communicate with the other children, it gave him an opportunity to make friends and gain the experience he needed to start kindergarten this year. He is still in a special education class with pull-outs to a regular class for socialization, but he is comfortable and loves school! Although I don't believe that every child needs to attend a preschool program, I believe that the programs need to reach farther into the community than what they currently do. The preschool in our district can only be attended at age three if there is a learning disability or severe delay and age four if the family qualifies for the free and reduced lunch program. It doesn't leave much of a chance for anyone who has a child that is just over the income qualification or is not dealyed enough. I know of several children in my area that could benifit from the services also provided through the preschool program, but don't qualify. So, while I think that families in affluent neighborhoods can and should afford preschool for their children many parents do not have the luxuries and need someone to help them find the best educaiton. It should also be the parents responsibility to keep tabs on their child's education and make sure they are attending a high quality education program and not a glorified daycare!

Not to split hairs, but given this, what you're saying is:

In 2002, these previously 5-year old children were 21. This study had been following their program for the prior 16 years? A great deal has changed in education since 1986.

And, quite frankly, if we allow the states to do for our preschool kids what they have managed to do for our primary and secondary kids, I think we'll all be better off taking education into our own hands.

This will become nothing more than another hole into which we sink taxpayer dollars. UNLESS they address the primary cancer in the education system, we'll only have kids that are undereducated, underparented, and underserved that much earlier. For the "benefit" of which we'll all pay.

Lisaedit, that's why preschool programs like HeadStart exist. Your question was about preschool for all, and that's a different scenario.

For "at risk" children, one might carry the argument further, and say, well, if we know these kids are "at risk" from birth, should we take them out of their parent's home, and put them into foster care to try and provide a more enriching environment even before preschool? Maybe their outcomes could be even better? (Sadly, I think there are some parents who would be more than happy to have it happen....they had their fun sexual encounter, and a baby probably wasn't a consideration at the time.)

As MagnetMom stated earlier, "This really goes back to the civics debate 101 over what everyone expects the government to do for us and what real cost for those services are. "

Yes, buckaroo, you are correct about California voting down preschool for all last year. That doesn't mean that the concept won't come back in one form or another in CA in the future.

Since this discussion started, I have done a bit more research and have learned in looking at some studies that the benefits of state-provided preschool are most noticeable for kids from low-income families who may not come from homes where there a lot of books available and activities to stimulate their development. One of the most famous studies, the Abdecedarian Project in 2002, measured the long-term benefits on "high-risk" infants enrolled in the program up to age 5. At age 21, those who had been in the preschool group in this study scored higher on achievement tests, were more likely to attend a 4-year college and were less likely to experience teen pregnancy.

You can pretty much figure out our ages by reading the answers to this question. I think that depending on what life-stage you are in - you might have a different answer.
My feeling at this older stage if my life is that there are no absolutes - no gaurantees. If a child attends pre-school - will he or she enjoy a more fullfilled life -who knows? Too many variables. Some parents do better having their children in a school - some use play groups - some use relatives. Some school aged children are home schooled. Some of the worst schools have turned out some real talent. Some students who have attended the best schools have failed miserably.
I do think that pre-education should be a family choice. However, I am not opposed to supporting any pre-school program for any child. If a parent feels they are not physically, emotionally, or monitarily equipped to provide for pre-school educational needs - then there should be programs in place. At the same time. I believe that the pre-school years represent huge opportunity for personality and social development.Family bonding cannot be comprised.
Outside schooling is not a replacement for family interaction. It should always be an addition.

I understand the urge to get out of daycare and wanting a full-time school option that wouldn't break the bank. I remember pining for the day my daughter would stop using diapers or Pull ups, because I knew that was going to be instant savings. And with my son, I wanted him off formula as soon as was safe because of the high cost for his brand. At no point, though, did I think the government should pay for those because they cut significantly into our budget.

This really goes back to the civics debate 101 over what everyone expects the government to do for us and what real cost for those services are.

1seremen, it's obvious that you don't have children with special education needs.
There is no correlation to a student attending a regular preschool program and being able to avoid special education classes "down the road." As it stands, children who are identified with special needs even at ages 0-3, are able to get special services under "early identification programs." They don't even have to wait until "typical preschool age" of 3 to receive remediation.

The majority of special ed students who have out-of-district placements at $20,000/year schools are those whose disabilities are either so severe that regular schools aren't equipped to handle their needs, OR it's been legally shown that the regular schools failed to provide FAPE, which means an APPROPRIATE education.

A child with a learning disability isn't necessarily low IQ, and in fact, they can be highly gifted, but they learn in a different way. Most schools use "one approach to teaching all students," and often it's not even scientifically-based methodology, so a child with a mild disability to start with might end up with a severe achievement delay after a few years of neglect. Placement in an expensive special school is an effort to "make up for" the regular school's earlier failures.

As others have already said, regular preschools are more for socialization, and are not going to address academic needs, and to argue it will save special education costs down the road is a fallacy.

Agree! Parents need parenting and anger management classes. It is common to see some parents directing their anger on people's handbag, Italian shoes, or big homes than paying attention to their children's need or improving their professional and personal skills.
Hopefully with these classes, the bitterness and frustration of some parents will be replace with joy and contentment

Again, preschool for children is a necessity in OK because some parents have no choice. The state reports that, it is helping. It is a common sense policy for the people of OK. Why!

$20,000.00 and up for a child in special education excluding parents' private expenses.
About $6,000.00 for a child in a regular class.
About $3,000.00 for a preschooler for 2.5 hours class.

The above shows how the money is distributed based on the need of a child. It is not special treatment or the same treatment, but it is fair for most children in OK.

Government "YOU" help most parents who can not afford $20,000.00 and up for their special need children. Also, YOU help most parents with about $6,000.00 in public education because they can not afford a private school . Last, it is a common good for YOU to provide around $3,000.00 for parents who cannot pay for their children's formal socialization. Everyone needs help even the government "YOU."

A wonderful morning to all members!

I agree that if it's free lunch, people have to have it even if they are fasting! :) In general, I'm actually sort of against sending children to school that early. I see your point buck, hockeymum, and the rest who are against the idea of free pre-school. I am not aware of any subsidised day-care or pre-school in my area, but I also remember counting days for my son to start school so we can save some money! :)

If memory serves, I do believe we voted down universal voluntary pre-school here in California just last year wasn't it? (I'm getting old and forgetful)

I love the debate I see here, however it's not going to change my mind. When I see something discussed as "free" I usually see something taken advantage of or worse, taken for granted. As soon as the government gets involved, a large bloated program trickles a little benefit to the people at a large cost to the taxpayers--and yep, that's me. So, I prefer personal responsibility. Needless to say, coming from California, I get outvoted quite a bit.

Like others have said, life is a series of choices, and while universal preschool might be a dream for many, the reality I see is that too many people use the word "necessity" when the do mean "choice."

Buckaroo- you hit the nail on the head "I'll let them start worrying about pre-school for all AFTER they get K-12 right. Once that's working well, then we'll see about expanding the government's involvement in education"

1seremen "Again, early childhood education is less expensive than a future special education or remedial courses"
early childhood education has no bearing on special education as learning disabilities are genetic. Preschool did nothing for my eldest who attended with a learning disability to assist her academically. (youngest child didn't attend) As for remediation I still don't see preschool improving this as preschool is only social, the only preschool that focuses on such abc's and reading instruction are Montessori which are usually very expensive and no government program could afford Montessori rates.

Eccentric - where I live day care and rent is subsidized for low income parents who work, but not pre-school.

If the government is so focused on children, money would be better spent on madatory parenting classes and anger managment classes. I think many but not all child behavioural issues are learnt and bred at home.

Another point to ponder is : Is there a different study about if early testing of children in K and 1 with immediate intervention for children needing it, increase grades and graduation rates? I'd rather my money go for testing than social play.

We don't have pre-school option here in Michigan, and I spent a lot (and I mean a lot!) of money on day care and pre-school. But that was OK because I could spend the money to have a career. Perhaps, pre-schools should be subsidised for working parents only. I know what you are thinking but pls. hear me out. If "free" pre-schools will allow more people to have children more than they could afford, or will increase taxes (afterall we'll be paying for it), then perhaps there should really be offered as an "option" to working parents only. They should also be taxed on it. People who decide to be stay at home parents should be happy with not sending their kids!
Some people don't have an option of staying at home even with two incomes. What about single parents who simply can't afford to stay at home at all. Wouldn't that be great for them to have a subsidised pre-school.
I don't necessarily like the government to intervene in personal choices and desicions whether it's school or our lives in general!

Thank God for 2008 election and Ms. Sarah Palin.

At last people are saying nice things about parents who work outside the home. Yes, these parents can enjoy their loving career, expensive clothing, big house, and brand named cars.

The state of OK pays for some children to attend preschool and it is helping. Also, it helps moved the state one step from the bottom fifty.

It is true that the state lacks behind in many things such as education, child and spouse abuse, divorce, obesity, and health care. For health care, most insurance do not cover contraceptive and women have no choice. Women continue to travel about 300 miles to see a specialist for their health, but with only one choice, that of the state law makers.

I think what influences the above is parental income and education. Most parents earning power is low and education after 12th grade is luxury for some families.

Again, early childhood education is less expensive than a future special education or remedial courses.

Lisa, citing one specific study is not "lots," and CA isn't representative of all the rest of the states, thankfully. The federal government isn't stopping CA from offering preschool now. If it's got such great "payback potential" then CA residents ought to do it for their own benefit, without federal funding or mandates.

I'll let them start worrying about pre-school for all AFTER they get K-12 right. Once that's working well, then we'll see about expanding the government's involvement in education.

tj,
I agree that not all children are planned. But if we start handing out free daycare, I envision a lot more people feeling they can have kids that they truly can't afford.

Hi Healthy11,
A recent RAND study, among others, touted the benefits of preschool, particularly for California: "The study, The Economics of Investing in Universal Preschool Education in California," estimates that the state would realize $2.62 in benefits for every dollar invested in preschool education and suggests that the $1.7 billion annual cost of such a program would be offset over the long-term by reductions in the amount of remedial education provided by the state, better grade-promotion rates among K-12 students, less youth and adult crime, and a more productive state workforce."
The thinking behind providing preschool for all is that the kids who arrive at kindergarten having gone to preschool are at a significant advantage. They know their numbers, they're familiar with books, they know about sharing with other kids. Kids who don't go to preschool have a lot of catching up to do and often end up in remedial classes, have behavior problems that lead to academic problems and need all kinds of extra help. By investing in preschool, we could save money down the line that might be spent on other expensive education and counseling services.

Oklahoma and Alabama put in place universal preschool with the intent of investing education dollars earlier in the education cycle to prevent problems later. You may not see the results from these programs immediately on test scores for schools in Oklahoma and Alabama now but the hope is we will see results in years to come. Incidentally, other states that have state-funded preK for all initiatives include Illinois, New Jersey, Florida and Georgia, among others.

I think Corinne Gregory has a valid point, "There is no factual basis for stating that kids who attend preschool go on to better and higher academic achievement."

Lisaedit, can you provide links to the "Lots of studies have shown that kids who go to preschool are more likely to learn to read by grade 3 and are more likely to succeed in kindergarten and beyond?" How far beyond?

Lisaedit also asked, "Does anyone come from a state where preschool is available for free to all, such as Oklahoma or Alabama? " I don't personally know anyone from OK or AL, but if their free preschool system was so wonderful, why are students in those states not outperforming others on NCLB and other tests, as "proof" of the benefits of it? In reality, they're among the worst performers.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the only group that tests across the U.S., and provides a standard basis for comparison, also known as "The Nation's Report Card." Their information points out the disparity between how states claim their children are doing in math and reading, versus how students are performing across the board...Here's a site that shows State NCLB testing comparisons to NAEP: www.time.com/nochild Here's a recent Greatschools article about NAEP: www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/showarticle/1200

There is a preschool that just opened in my neighborhood this year that is able to offer reduced tuition because they are renting the space at a reduced rate from the school district. People who live in the neighborhood have priority. It's still a private preschool, but the reduced tuition makes it affordable for many types of families. Perhaps this is something that would resound better with more people.

I'm sorry that you guys read my statement as coming from an entitled mentality. Personally, I don't think I'm entitled to much. I've worked hard my whole life for everything I have and as far as material items go, that's not much. I rent a small apartment, I drive a car that's twenty years old, I don't have credit cards or a plasma TV. I did stay home with my daughter for the first year and financially it was a huge strain but I applaud any family who is able to make it work for sustained periods of time. I want my daughter to go to preschool, not because I'm looking for childcare, but because I believe she will benefit from it in many ways.

Buckaroo, it would be great if all families were planned and could thus plan for the cost of preschool.

Ryan909 said, "Also preschool doesn't force kids to learn things they may not be ready for."

A lot of preschools are for "play" but I know of some that are really into academics too. It all depends on which one you go to.

So many times our "leaders" make these blanket statements without explaining what the rationale is behind the edict or promise.

What, EXACTLY, is the purpose of state-funded preschool? We have a local politician who believes the same thing, stating (erroneously) that it ELIMINATES drop-outs, improves academic achievement, and all sorts of other wonderful things.

Problem is: none of that is proven. There is no factual basis for stating that kids who attend preschool go on to better and higher academic achievement.

The ONLY thing it may do (for the kids) is provide them with earlier socialization, but it has to be the RIGHT kind of socialization and in the right setting for it to benefit the kids.

And, in today's climate where everyone is complaining about "education being underfunded" (another not-so-accurate statement) you have to wonder who's going to pay for this extra level of state-sponsored education?

Hear, hear, Hockeymum! I agree 100%.

That will be great, when my girls were 3 years old, I have to pay a private pre-school.

I would have to answer that this is a question of how much influence does the government need in this aspect of our country? Dollars "from the government" are tied to criteria specified by "the government" - does the government need to stabilize or influence our society by intervening with as many children's experiences as possible at these ages?
Do the people involved in setting the criteria for those dollars hold the same opinion as the majority of voters (are they elected directly?) Or does that even make a difference?

My son never went to preschool. The first day of kindergarten, many preschool kids were crying, he was just excited.
He is now in honors in college.
Like ryan said preschool is basically kids playing. I don't think the government should foot the bill for that.

Also, I don't see the preschool near us identify LDs, if anything, they encourage parents to delay kindergarten to see if they outgrow their issues. If there are kids that parents suspect, perhaps start a program for testing, but not for babysitting.

but the reality is that more and more families need to have two working parents and the cost of preschool is a lot. "

We are a society of people who think we are entitled to everything. When do we draw the line. I'm sick of government handouts and bailouts. This is why the world is in an ecomonic slide now.
Make people more accoutable and everything would adjust. Its nice to finally see housing prices drop for once.
I made the sacrifice not to work and live in a condo for the longest time to parent my children until they were in school full time. (my youngest didn't even go to preschool) (did it make a difference - no)
Some people complain they both must work but they also drive brand new cars, huge houses, plasma hdtvs, sports, ex cir activities, nice clothes, dinners out. If people just downsized maybe they could afford preschool. So my opinion is no the government should not pay for this.
Sorry to sound grouchy and I'll get off my soapbox now.

Yes! This is a common sense question. Government is YOU. We cannot run away from ourselves, a common good, or future.

Government "YOU" pays for housing many young people in prisons, provides special education for most students, takes heavy burden to help children with special needs, takes care of our roads, wars, helps developing nations, pays some of our college's tuition, pays some our medical bills, pays for some of our rent, untilities, and grocery, and so on and on.

My state pays for some of the children in the preschool and they are getting a good result. The second question, why are we paying for Head Start or K-12? Why are children without preschool experience often lacks behind. Why affluent families drag their children to preschool from the age of two. Most "rich people" believe preschool is a necessity for all children.

I think if a free preschool is offer for every child, there is likely a decrease in special education and increase in the academics of some of our students. If government "YOU" refuses to pay for preschool now, it likely "YOU" will pay a hundred percent more in the next fifteen years.

Great question!

One size doesn't fit all ,that's why it's voluntary.Also pre-school doesnt force kids to learn things they may not be ready for .Kids go to pre-school mainly to play ,because playing with other kids is learning.If learning to respect others is too much for your kids to learn ,than you don't want to put them in pre-school.

TJ,
I agree that it costs a lot, but parents should know that up front and plan accordingly. My husband and I staggered shifts to minimize the need for daycare when my kids were young. We limited the number of kids to what we could afford. While I have no issues with providing kids an education, I am not for paying to babysit someone elses infant. That's the parents responsibility. (just my 2 cents)

I understand where everyone's coming from, but the reality is that more and more families need to have two working parents and the cost of preschool is a lot.

There are a lot of families who make too much to qualify for programs like Head Start but paying full tuition for preschool would be too much of a financial strain. I think that a voluntary, universal preschool option would be beneficial to these families.

The preschool I'm hoping for my daughter next year has a very flexible schedule and their motto is "keep kids from sitting at desks for as long as possible." You can pick up and drop off at any time during the day and you can choose from a three, four or five day schedule. This kind of flexibility allows families to use the school to fit the specific needs of their child and their family.

Would it be possible for a state funded preschool to be tailored to fit the specific needs of each community it serves?

I don't think the current state-by-state variations in NCLB education rquirements serve this country well, and I don't like the idea of state-provided preschools, either.
Is this preschool going to be Tues-Thurs. half-day for 3-year-olds, and M-W-F half day for 4-yr-olds, as most are now, OR is this really a case where people are seeking publicly provided 9-5 daycare?
I'm afraid, as MagnetMom states, it's the latter, and some people are more than happy to let the schools "raise" their children instead of taking on the full responsibilities of parenthood themselves.

I have to agree with what other's have said. One size doesn't fit all. I have seen some children (not all of course) that do go to preschool and forced to learn things they may not really be ready to learn (like reading) become burned out of school by the time they are in elementary school.

Yes, we should read to our children everyday but we shouldn't force them to things they may not be ready for. Neither of my boys have been to preschool and have done great!

My oldest might have done well in preschool. He picks up things quickly but he has done fine without going to preschool.

On the other hand my youngest wouldn't have done well in preschool. He does much better with one on one teaching. He can get distracted easily and I don't think it would have done him much good to be in preschool. Now he is more apt to sit still and concentrate. He still is an active child and sometimes finds it hard to sit still when he isn't interested but he's much better than he used to be. I don't believe preschool would have helped him.

So I really think every child is different and needs different things. If they make preschool universal who's to say the next step won't be making it mandatory?

I, myself, am not a fan of universal anything, since one-size never fits all and more prone to believe other studies I've seen that have pointed out that most of the benefits of preschool have evened themselves out by third grade. I didn't formally preschool either of my children and practically had to hide it from the school entities for fear of being reported as an abusive parent. Oddly enough, they had enough activities and experiences they both turned/are turning out to be model citizens.

There just seems to be more and more focus on pushing parenting off on other people (full day kindergarten, year-round schools) and not wanting to pay for it.

Actually I take that back, we are paying for that, dearly.

The government doesn't need to provide everything. Preschool experiences can take many forms, and as it isn't required, I see no reason why the state should pay for it for everyone. At-risk children are served by Head Start programs, which is fine, but those who are able to pay tuition and choose their own preschools should be allowed to do it, as they do now. This is one reason why people would like school vouchers, so they can continue to have choices in their children's educations beyond preschool years.

If a child hasn't learned to read by grade 3 and has no learning disabilities, I'd worry about a lot more than whether he made it through preschool or not. That says that the parents haven't been reading to the child at home his entire life, and a lack of support at home won't make even the best preschool in the world effective.