Beep Beep Beep: Warning from the Anti-Pre-K Broadcast System by J.M. Holland

Reform Movement weatherman Neal McCluskey has announced a change in the description of the pre-k for all movement in the panel discussion of Checker Finn's book Reroute the Preschool Juggernaut. The reform movement, also known as the P-3 movement, the Voluntary Pre-K movement, and the Universal Pre-K movement, had been characterized as a Juggernaut (an unstoppable crushing force) up until last Thursday. Now, McCluskey has upgraded it to a Tsunami (a giant unstoppable wave). This characterization begs us to consider why a reform movement, intended to benefit children ages 0-5, would be so negatively portrayed. It doesn't make sense. Maybe he meant it as a compliment. As in, there will be a Tsunami of economic opportunities washing over the nation. Or there would be a Tsunami of services to assist struggling families in our country.

The problem that Checker Finn, Neal McCluskey, and other opponents of pre-k seem to have with de-railing the pre-k for all movement is that their tools (claims of confusing data, expensive implementation, suspect benefits) can't stand up to the crushing weight of evidence. It is especially hard when even on June 7th, Checker acknowledged that he is "in favor of preschool for those who want or need it. The book is not anti-preschool." (6.30 into the video)

As a pre-k teacher who has seen the effects of pre-k over the last 15 years, I can tell you that cognitive skills are not the only thing important to measure and teach in pre-k. There is a difference between thinking skills and foundational skills like letter recognition, naming, and use of phonemic awareness or what Checker calls cognitive skills. These cognitive skills are really just the basis for later cognitive development and are best taught through repeated encounters with letters, numbers, and letter sounds in and out of context. The real argument is that cognitive skills are not the only skill necessary to succeed in school. In fact, it is just the easiest to measure. I have seen physically active boys reading and doing math at a kindergarten/first grade level who fail in kindergarten because the definition of what learning looks like is so narrow that boys don't meet the standard. In our current educational environment, learning looks like children, as Checker has said, sitting, following directions, and behaving. Not jumping, dancing and singing and using manipulatives to do beginning algebra as we do in my classroom. Raise the standards to include social/emotional school readiness and you will discover that pre-k is vital in the development of the human potential of our country.

In Checker's argument during the panel discussion, he stated that he did not want to give middle class families the option of attending high-quality state-funded pre-k because it "offers an unnecessary entitlement style middle-class windfall to millions of kids and families that have made their own satisfactory preschool arrangements already without it."

On the contrary, a targeted preschool approach leaves some needy children outside the classroom. According to Education Sector, “far too many families of modest means do not qualify for subsidized preschool yet are too poor to pay for preschool themselves.” A targeted approach burdens middle income families with high costs for day care, which cuts into their earning capacity and, in some communities with fewer high quality choices, for child care. There is possible harm in denying access to preschool to low and middle SES families with individual need.

Historically, America has considered public investment in schooling a sound investment in human capital. Pre(K)Now points out that “targeting pre-k toward at-risk children creates separate and potentially unequal programs for lower- and upper-income children while failing to address the significant readiness gap between middle- and upper-income children.” Schulman and Barnett write, 

Research shows that the need for high-quality preschool education does not stop at the eligibility limits for targeted preschool programs. Rather, it proceeds on a continuum up the income scale. Many middle-income children—particularly those from families in the lower portion of middle income—lack the opportunity to attend high-quality preschool programs and as a result often start school unprepared.

If families were expected to finance K-12 education themselves, they would likely not invest at a level that would benefit society as a whole. Factors that influence the decision to pay for preschool include transportation, distance, quality, and cost. If a parent can choose to send their child to preschool, it will benefit them and society, but often they cannot or do not have this option. According to Karoly and Bigelow of the RAND corporation, the short and long-term benefits of preschool to families are important but the benefits to society may be more important. “Economists refer to this underinvestment in preschool education as a market failure that can justify public-sector resources to reach the socially optimal outcome.” Denying preschool to a child based purely on financial indicators denies that child justice if they need those services. It is not a matter of economy, it is a matter of equity. One cannot have a fair educational system without providing the same opportunity to all, even in preschool.