Universal PreK for MCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any evidence showing head start kids perform better in an universal preK enviroment?

That's a good question.

The Head of the Heard article above shows that Universal PreK might even be detrimental to lower income kids.

We don't need a preK program for middle/higher income kids. That's not a wise use of funding. Where is the money for Universal PreK going to come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any evidence showing head start kids perform better in an universal preK enviroment?

That's a good question.

The Head of the Heard article above shows that Universal PreK might even be detrimental to lower income kids.

We don't need a preK program for middle/higher income kids. That's not a wise use of funding. Where is the money for Universal PreK going to come from?

Taxes, of course. Taxes of some kind, on somebody or something. Where does the money for any government activity come from? That's the whole point of taxes -- to fund government activity.

[Anonymous]

I think the point about Universal preK causing a shift towards more academic preschools is a good point.we already push kids to do too much too early. We don't need MCPS pushing for more assessments at an even earlier age!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the point about Universal preK causing a shift towards more academic preschools is a good point.we already push kids to do too much too early. We don't need MCPS pushing for more assessments at an even earlier age!

I am all for a high quality universal pre-k program. It will all depend on how mcps decides to design the program. I hope they have a core of Early Childhood educators who work on designing the program. I would fully support that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually almost all early intervention programs have gains that fade out. I think there are a couple of small intensive ( read expensive) ones that show very small gains in a few areas into adulthood but most do not. IMO, it's a feel good use of money, but ineffective.

That doesn't show that early intervention is ineffective. It only shows that early intervention, by itself, doesn't do the trick. Nor should anyone expect it to. Saying that Head Start is ineffective because the gains don't last is like saying that exercise is ineffective after you exercise for 1-2 years and then don't exercise for the next 12.

Not really the same thing; they're still "exercising" by being in school after the early-intervention programs finish. The fact of the matter is that no early intervention program has been shown to raise academic performance long term. If it doesn't work, why are we doing it? The data doesn't support it.