Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for posting this OP. I am a teacher for the county and hold an Early Childhood degree; I am very interested to see how this plays out.

Would be interested in hearing your opinion! Would you support this? Do you think Universal preK would lead to better salary for you (well-deserved, IMO, because I think Early Childhood Ed teachers are underpaid). Do you think it will lead to a better caliber of teachers or do you think the increased licensing requirements of MCPS would mean that there would be a better quality of teachers?

I'm the teacher you responded to...to be honest, I am a bit torn. I could not disagree more with the posters on this thread regarding the benefit of early childhood education. Study after study shows that quality early childhood experiences (be they formal or informal) DO lead to future success in and out of the classroom. I do believe that universal pre-k will allow more highly qualified applicants to teach this age group while still earning a decent paycheck (this is the reason so many ECE majors don't end up teaching preschool, it pays nothing). So in that sense, I do think it would elevate the profession thus benefiting the children and families it serves.

My only concern (other than funding) is that MCPS is so assessment driven. Quality Early Childhood education looks different than upper grades. It means open playing, exploration and direct teaching of social skills. It is messy (literally) and progress/success is going to need to be monitored in a different way. Basically, I don't want mcps to make preschool the new kindergarten, or worse, the new first grade.

If I were able to trust that this would be a true quality program, I would be a very strong and active supporter.

YES! For the most part, I think DC has done pretty well with this.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for posting this OP. I am a teacher for the county and hold an Early Childhood degree; I am very interested to see how this plays out.

Would be interested in hearing your opinion! Would you support this? Do you think Universal preK would lead to better salary for you (well-deserved, IMO, because I think Early Childhood Ed teachers are underpaid). Do you think it will lead to a better caliber of teachers or do you think the increased licensing requirements of MCPS would mean that there would be a better quality of teachers?

I'm the teacher you responded to...to be honest, I am a bit torn. I could not disagree more with the posters on this thread regarding the benefit of early childhood education. Study after study shows that quality early childhood experiences (be they formal or informal) DO lead to future success in and out of the classroom. I do believe that universal pre-k will allow more highly qualified applicants to teach this age group while still earning a decent paycheck (this is the reason so many ECE majors don't end up teaching preschool, it pays nothing). So in that sense, I do think it would elevate the profession thus benefiting the children and families it serves.

My only concern (other than funding) is that MCPS is so assessment driven. Quality Early Childhood education looks different than upper grades. It means open playing, exploration and direct teaching of social skills. It is messy (literally) and progress/success is going to need to be monitored in a different way. Basically, I don't want mcps to make preschool the new kindergarten, or worse, the new first grade.

If I were able to trust that this would be a true quality program, I would be a very strong and active supporter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd hold off on the outrage you all seem to have about universal pre-K in MoCo. It's been talked about for years, and will continue to be discussed for years before it can be implemented, especially with the governor we currently have. As far as improving student achievement, though, studies do show that it is a valuable program.

Actually that is not true. There have been studies recently that show programs such as Head Start do not have as much of a positive future effect as they claim.

Not saying we should eliminate Head Start, but your claim that 'studies show it is a valuable program' are not completely true.

No. The studies show that, if you drop a Head Start kid into failing school like the ones that most Head Start kids are zoned for, they will lose the advantages of Head Start by 3rd Grade. However, we don't have to drop kids into failing schools.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should use any extra money to enhance curreny preK programs for low income students. Add more hours will definitely makes the kids learn better.

What extra money? Lol

At any rate, preK isn't mandatory, which means parents often don't care as much. I have a good friend who teaches for Head Start and she often comments that parents just don't send their kids in (because it's raining, because they had family in town, because the kid overslept, etc)

I work in a school with Pre-K, and work with the Pre-K students themselves, and I find this to be true as well. The absence rate is high and so many kids are dropped off late, which is impactful because the program is only around 3 hours per day. There aren't any ramifications for chronic tardiness or absences like there are for K-12, and it disrupts the learning environment because many 4 year olds have a tough time transitioning as it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for posting this OP. I am a teacher for the county and hold an Early Childhood degree; I am very interested to see how this plays out.

Would be interested in hearing your opinion! Would you support this? Do you think Universal preK would lead to better salary for you (well-deserved, IMO, because I think Early Childhood Ed teachers are underpaid). Do you think it will lead to a better caliber of teachers or do you think the increased licensing requirements of MCPS would mean that there would be a better quality of teachers?

Not the PP you're questioning, but I'm an EC educator in DC. Universal pre-k has had some interesting ramifications there that are not often attributed to universal pre-k. I thought this was an interesting take on it:

https://aheadoftheheard.org/how-universal-pre-k-broke-subsidized-child-care-in-d-c/

Overall though, if implemented correctly, I think it could be a very positive move for EC educators, families, children and the county. Early childhood teachers would get better pay and more respect (in exchange for higher requirements, of course) and families would have more options. The county would be more attractive for middle and upper income families as well--many people tout free pre-k as a reason to live in DC.

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for posting this OP. I am a teacher for the county and hold an Early Childhood degree; I am very interested to see how this plays out.

Would be interested in hearing your opinion! Would you support this? Do you think Universal preK would lead to better salary for you (well-deserved, IMO, because I think Early Childhood Ed teachers are underpaid). Do you think it will lead to a better caliber of teachers or do you think the increased licensing requirements of MCPS would mean that there would be a better quality of teachers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd hold off on the outrage you all seem to have about universal pre-K in MoCo. It's been talked about for years, and will continue to be discussed for years before it can be implemented, especially with the governor we currently have. As far as improving student achievement, though, studies do show that it is a valuable program.

Actually that is not true. There have been studies recently that show programs such as Head Start do not have as much of a positive future effect as they claim.

Not saying we should eliminate Head Start, but your claim that 'studies show it is a valuable program' are not completely true.

No. The studies show that, if you drop a Head Start kid into failing school like the ones that most Head Start kids are zoned for, they will lose the advantages of Head Start by 3rd Grade. However, we don't have to drop kids into failing schools.

So spending money for Universal PreK won't really be effective unless we are able to actually make more significant changes in lower income kids' lives. Makes sense. So we should use the money to give lower income kids better support when they are actually in K-2 so that any gains made in Head Start are not washed away. I would guess smaller class sizes and more aides would be good? Instead of more Chromebooks and Smartboards.

But instead MCPS wants to roll out Chromebooks in 2nd grade (which even the teachers think is a bad idea) and increase class sizes.

Limited resources, people. Limited resources. Spending them on Universal preK at this time is not the way to go.

Thank you for posting this OP. I am a teacher for the county and hold an Early Childhood degree; I am very interested to see how this plays out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should use any extra money to enhance curreny preK programs for low income students. Add more hours will definitely makes the kids learn better.

What extra money? Lol

At any rate, preK isn't mandatory, which means parents often don't care as much. I have a good friend who teaches for Head Start and she often comments that parents just don't send their kids in (because it's raining, because they had family in town, because the kid overslept, etc)

The middle-class parents at the private preschool my kids went to did that too.

Anonymous wrote:How does universal preK help the low income head start kid?

The same way being in any school with not just poor kids helps poor kids. It's well-established that high-poverty schools are bad for the education of poor kids, and that poor kids do much better in economically integrated, low-poverty schools.

We should definitely bus kids to Asburton or other good schools. The portables are already busting at the seems and even with a major tax hike, their will not be nearly enough money. I know, we could just pitch tents, preschool outside is very trendy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does universal preK help the low income head start kid?

Mandatory pre-k means all kids will go regardless of parent attitude toward pre-k and regardless of the availability of a Head Start slot or voucher for private pre-K. Also, if more MC parents can use public pre-K, they will use their political resources to ensure a higher quality program than if only LI/WC parents were involved.

FWIW, my older kid would have qualified for Head Start, but we couldn't find a slot. I paid 1/3 of my income for half-day private pre-K and lived in a scary housing situation to ensure my DC got more ECEd than just Sesame Street. K was also half day, which kept us in poverty a year longer since I had to pay for 5.5 more hours of care a day or forget about working FT.

I can't think of a school system where universal pre-K has meant mandatory preK.

Anonymous wrote:How does universal preK help the low income head start kid?

Mandatory pre-k means all kids will go regardless of parent attitude toward pre-k and regardless of the availability of a Head Start slot or voucher for private pre-K. Also, if more MC parents can use public pre-K, they will use their political resources to ensure a higher quality program than if only LI/WC parents were involved.

FWIW, my older kid would have qualified for Head Start, but we couldn't find a slot. I paid 1/3 of my income for half-day private pre-K and lived in a scary housing situation to ensure my DC got more ECEd than just Sesame Street. K was also half day, which kept us in poverty a year longer since I had to pay for 5.5 more hours of care a day or forget about working FT.