Alternative Facts?

Claims of the benefits of high-quality pre-K programs have been presented to the BCC a couple of times now.  We're told VPK improves high school graduation rates and also improves test scores measured after grade 3.  I am waiting for the proof.....

A few weeks back Achieve Escambia visited the BCC to give us an update on their work in the community.  I appreciated the update and the discussion.

The subject of VPK came up at that time and I briefly discussed my thoughts on this with the presenters that day.  One of the discussion points that I took issue with at that time was simply the efficacy of high-priced VPK and Pre-K programs when looked at from an academic standpoint.

My overall opinion:  These are expensive programs that are beneficial socially, like entitlements, but that are not effective (or minimally effective) long-term from a strictly academic standpoint.

This is not popular because there is a lot of money pumped into these programs and a lot of profit to be made by companies that promote the academic benefits of such programs.

But with great claims come the expectation of clear and convincing evidence of effectiveness--otherwise I will not be convinced.

The research studies I have read ( the high-quality research studies, not the anecdotal, topical ones that look at Abecadarian and Perry High-Scope from the 1960's and 1970) point to a fade-out of academic gains by third grade among Pre-K completers.  This wash-out that occurs renders the casual observer unable to differentiate those students from similar economic backgrounds and cohorts who did/did not attend Pre-K when all students are measured academically upon completion of third grade.

This sort of blows up the notion that Pre-K is this academic panacea that helps students from challenged home lives do better in school long-term.  Trouble is-- Early Childhood Education, VPK, Pre-K and similar programs are popular program because they bring money and jobs to areas and these programs are among those academic ideas (like smaller class sizes for better academic outcomes) that seem like they ought to be beneficial-- but the benefits of which are hard if not impossible to quantify.

The other gem I heard that day was that somehow a good Pre-K program improves High School Graduation percentages.  What??  Says who?  Where is the proof?  I have never heard of any reputable research that shows this, so I asked for the studies when Achieve Escambia appeared before the board.  Never heard back from them.

Fast forward to yesterday evening, and the early learing coalition was presenting to the board.  Executive Director Walter Watson was looking for $300K for his group--an expenditure I support by the way.  

He takes money from the county and other sources and leverages it to provide day-care services to families in poverty so the parents can work.  His paperwork shows that this group has been very successful at multiplying these local government monies to accomplish this mission.  I also like the fact that his salary is among the lowest of the Executive Directors that have pitched before the board--so when the discussion came around to the quality of the day-care/pre-school, Watson threw out the anecdote that the "Florida Department of Education has a study that shows that Pre-K graduates score 15 points higher on standardized testing than their non-Pre-K graduate peers when measured at grade 3."  I asked him to clarify that statement because I couldn't believe my ears.

I don't believe such a study exists.  I don't believe there are any strictly-controlled, scientifically valid

Achieve Escambia Visits the BCC

Achieve Escambia is a local group working for positive changes in our community to foster greater achievement from “Cradle to Career” for Escambia County youth.  I listened with great interest as Jennifer McFerrin gave the BCC a presentation/update about this group at this past Thursday’s Committee of the whole.  When it was appropriate, I asked questions and chimed in with my view as a 10-year member of the local school board.  

I was cut-off at one point by my colleague Grover Robinson, and another counterpart disagreed with much of what I said.  But the fact of the matter is that much of what we are doing is not working and I strongly believe that we need to take a different approach. Once again we are loaded down with 5 “F” Elementary schools and a raft of “D” schools throughout our local public school district.  The point I desperately tried to make was that we must stop dumping money into the same programs over and over that do not work.  

We must stop demoralizing and beating up the teachers that are working themselves into early graves giving all they have in order to help students that have abysmal home-lives.  We must, in my opinion, take a different approach.  

Focus on Families.  Remove discipline nightmare students.  Apply for a school of hope grant for a public charter boarding school to help the students in our community that live in extreme social dysfunction. Eliminate social promotion. Focus on rigorous academic programs for reading in grades 1-3.  These are the priorities.  Because if we can get to the students who want to learn—we can make a difference.  But first we must have some difficult conversations…..

Social Dysfunction and Poor Choices Destroy Communities and Socially–Dysfunctional Communities Create Low-Performing Public School Districts

Whether we’re talking about facilitating neighborhood trash clean-ups, enabling neighborhood property improvements via low cost loans and grants, setting up summer work programs for community youth, building sidewalks and parks, or giving all students county library cards--a local government can do things to help make communities better.  Our County spends millions of dollars every year providing services that enhance our community.  But this, in and of itself, does not make a great community.

Our local public school district provides all students access to educational 

Universal Pre-K: Myths and Reality Part II

I've discussed this issue plenty on this blog.  Universal Pre-K, funded by tax dollars, touted as an "educational program" panacea that will benefit students throughout their lives, is a myth. It is an expensive one, to boot.

But these programs enjoy broad bipartisan support from politicians of every stripe that love the money these programs inject into their jurisdictions.  Everyone loves money, right? And if it funds a program "for the children"---- it becomes all but  unstoppable, a juggernaut.

Even if the best, most well-constructed studies debunk the lofty claims Universal Pre-K proponents espouse (lifetime benefits,7 to 1 ROI, value to communities, etc, etc. etc.) --these  ideologues married to the notion that the government must fund these programs will never stop proclaiming their view of the benefits of these programs, intentionally disguising the fact that these programs are job creating entitlements, not long-term, effective educational programs...

Earlier this week US News and World Report ran an article on this same subject.  From the report:

"Pre-K for all” has become a rallying cry for progressives, underscored last week by Hillary Clinton’s speech at the Center for American Progress' discussion on “Expanding Opportunity in America’s Urban Areas." In her seven-minute talk, Clinton emphasized the “overriding issues of inequality and lack of mobility” in America, and praised New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s universal pre-K program as a model for helping the struggling middle class. There’s no question that the rapidly growing cost of child care has become a huge burden on middle-class families. Since 2000, the cost of child care has increased twice as much as median income of families with children..Pre-K advocates

What is the Academic Value of Early Childhood Education and Pre-K Programs?

A local survey regarding the academic efficacy of Early Childhood Education programs suggests continued strong support among educators, while the latest published studies show minimal, if any, academic benefit attributable to such programs.... Why?

In early November, 2014, I surveyed approximately 1,900 teachers in the Escambia County School District on the subject of Early Childhood Education.

I immediately received nearly 400 responses to the six question survey I distributed, and I am very thankful to all who responded and submitted responses!  These summarized responses are presented in the table below.

I completed  a research project utilizing the latest published study results from this field combined with these local survey data on the subject of VPK, Universal Pre-K, Head Start, and other taxpayer subsidized early childhood education.

The results of the survey were not surprising; the vast majority of teachers locally strongly support the continuation/expansion of these taxpayer subsidized ECE programs--- even if the academic benefit of such expenditures, according to recent studies I cite in my research--- cannot be clearly demonstrated.  This overwhelming support for continuation is seemingly at odds with the majority of responses to question #5 below.  Interesting and perplexing.