Hey all, below is an excerpt from a great post the fab Elana Levin did on universal preschool (something I think is a hugely important feminist issue). Read away....
Contributed by Elana Levin.
Think a proven to work progressive public policy like universal access to high quality preschool education is just a pipe dream for New York? At this morning's Marketplace of Ideas panel New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said she's so certain of the public's force of will on this issue that expanded pre-k access will be a reality before the 2009 Mayoral Elections.
In case you missed DMI's panel on Promoting Access to Pre-School Education with retired Oklahoma State Senator Penny Williams the room was simply packed. That's standing room only at 8am on a Monday so clearly this IS an issue with momentum.
The panel began with an introduction by the President of the United Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten. She explained that educators know intuitively "in their guts" that universal preschool is essential to giving kids the level playing field they need when entering school. Luckily we don't have to rely on guts alone to show the benefits of pre-k, The Pew Charitable Trusts have issued numerous studies demonstrating the lasting value that preschool education gives children and society as a whole (they have some excellent fact sheets including this one on Economic Benefits of Quality Preschool Education for America's 3- and 4-Year Olds and this one on Why All Children Benefit from Pre-K).
Speakers on the panel where New York Council Speaker Quinn, Nancy Kolben, Co-director of the Winning Beginning NY Campaign and Adelaide Sanford, Vice Chancellor of the New York State Board of Regents (a woman deserving her own chapter in Bartlett's Book of Quotations, her words where so incisive).
Offering universal pre-k isn't extremely controversial, yet it never quite seems to happen in New York despite its huge success in Oklahoma. This is bound to change because the payoff for any elected that made universal preschool a reality would be huge. Speaker Quinn explained that providing more preschool classes shows families that government can do something concrete to help them. The importance of pre-k for working parents was underlined by her explanation that there are currently vacant spots for children in half-day pre-k but none left in all-day preschool because parents need their children cared for all day, not just for a few hours. She emphasized the connection between pre-k and workforce issues saying:
"this is about working people and children...[providing access to pre-K] recognizes the daily struggles and challenges people have in their lives."
Read the full post at DMIBlog.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Universal Pre-K In Our Time.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/4225
Offering universal pre-k isn't extremely controversial
Actually, I would say when Rob Reiner was trying to push through his massive preschool initiative in California that it was quite controversial.
I'm not familiar with what happened in California. What possible problem could people have with universal it had something to do with the necessity of increased taxes to fund it, right?
I'm not a fan of universal pre-k. This is persuading poor families to stick their child in a school like institution, instead of spending more quality time with them and having more education occur with-in the home or the daycare setting. Also, while money goes into a pre-k system, lots of schools are having trouble maintaining their buildings, books and hiring teachers. Pre-k will add yet another burden to the already over-worked and underfunded American education system. I can seriously imagine a day when placing children in school at the age of 2 is common. That to me isn't a positive. School isn't a very stimulating or creative environment for a young child to be in. More and more children are being parented by the government or the media and not their parents.
"School isn't a very stimulating or creative environment for a young child to be in."
That depends on the school. There are plenty of classes where I was from (NYC) for two-year olds that don't take the whole school day but do allow the kids to socialize with each other (thus building their immune systems by getting sick, I must admit), develop relationships with other adults, and often learn creative and interesting stuff that their parents don't know (like, if it were my future kids, they'd learn music, because I got no musical skills whatsoever). My mom was a stay-at-home mom and she sent both me and my sister to pre-k.
I like the idea of universal pre-K. From what I know, the Head Start program had very positive effects, that only subsequently worn away by later, substandard schooling.
I am another non-fan of universal pre-k. First I can't imagine how my school would absorb this change. They switched to all day KG this year and the school is full to the brim, their lunch time had to be cut down, outdoor trailers had to put up to hold resource classes. Adding a whole grade on top of that would greatly decrease the quality of education for not only my older children but all children in my district.
I recently read an open letter of concern from British experts that claimed many children are suffering from depression, behavioral and development issues as a result of a lack of intimacy with the significant adults in their lives.
I know in my state pre-K is offered in more troubled regions, as my mother was a teacher in such a district and often school is the one positive environment these children will experience. As is the same idea behind Head Start to offer these programs more targeted and I just feel it should remain as such, that education needs to be more localized (opposed to universalized) and able to address the local needs and concerns of the community.
Pre-K sounds like a terrible idea, i think schools should focus on teaching K-12 and do that correctly before they add another year. If my english is bad it's because of my schooling :)
This is a tough one. So many parents need this. And yet...and yet...I don't like it.
We scrape by so that my toddler can stay home to be cared for by his dad. Not everyone has this kind of option, but it seems terribly healthy. What I would like to see - more than anything else- is a non-stigmatized stipend for a parent to care for a child full-time, at least in the first few years. I'd rather my tax dollars went to this than to thermonuclear weapons, hell yeh.
Right now, this is a job that is only considered to be pay-worthy when a non-family member does it. That is part of our over-arching problem with child-care. That is part of what creates the need for universal Pre-K.
I don't have a better answer. But this one makes me awfully uneasy.