$7 in Savings for $1 in Early Childhood?

Governor Sebelius repeated the “spend $1 to save $7″ argument for taxpayer funded pre-K programs in this last weekend’s Wichita Eagle. (Early Childhood Needs Early Commitment, May 27)
First, the governor’s essay is printed below, followed by an evaluation of the supporting number.

———————————-

All Americans know the power of education to change lives and expand opportunities. That’s why the guarantee of a quality public education has always been such an integral part of our nation’s promise to its young people, and why we’re seeing states making significant new commitments to K-12 schools.

But too many children are entering those schools without the basic skills they need to succeed in kindergarten and beyond, which is why we need a national commitment to early learning efforts such as prekindergarten.

This national problem was brought home to state policymakers by a recent survey of Kansas teachers that revealed that less than half of children start kindergarten fully ready to learn. But this isn’t just an issue here — it’s a national problem.

Starting off school behind means many of these children stay behind throughout their school lives and into adulthood, meaning they may never reach their full potential. This costs states money in terms of spending on remedial classes and programs, which are less effective and cost-efficient than early learning efforts.

There are social costs as well, especially in reduced wages for workers who aren’t ultimately as successful as they would have been had they been able to take advantage of the full opportunities of their education.

For every dollar we invest in early childhood education, we can save seven future dollars by having fewer juvenile offenders in our prisons, fewer Americans on public assistance and a work force more nimble and prepared for an ever-changing world.

Ninety percent of a child’s brain development occurs before the age of 5, and children who attend early childhood programs are far more likely to enter kindergarten ready to learn, read at an appropriate grade level and go on to graduate from high school.

In 2006, Kansas legislators supported my recommendation to increase funding for early childhood education, including the creation of pre-K pilot projects around our state. This year, they again answered my call, committing an additional $5.1 million to early learning.

These efforts will have significant and lasting benefits in Kansas, just as similar efforts can have a positive impact on our nation. That’s why 29 governors proposed increased support for pre-K and other early learning efforts this year, and why the nation’s governors call on Congress and the president to work with us to bring early learning opportunities to all young Americans.

We need to bring together policymakers, educators, early learning professionals and parents to ensure that all children have the education needed to achieve their full potential.

We must make a national commitment to provide all children with access to quality early learning opportunities, for their sake and for the sake of our nation’s long-term prosperity.

—————————

There are several objections to the arguments raised in the governor’s essay. But let’s go straight to the $7 figure, since that makes the proposal for taxpayer-funded day care seem fiscally sensible.

Darcy Olsen, an independent expert on the subject, has pointed out that the benefits of early childhood education are often oversold. One section of her white paper, Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten, is worth quoting at length:

The Perry Preschool Project was a longitudinal experiment designed to study the effects of early intervention on disadvantaged children. It was the early intervention program most frequently cited in research reviews between 1983 and 1997, and is heavily cited in the literature and legislation in support of universal preschool.[1]

Investigators at the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation in Ypsilanti, Michigan, conducted the experiment from 1962 to 1965. The investigators reported their most recent findings in “Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 40.”[2] The project was an intervention program for three- and four-year-olds deemed at risk for “retarded intellectual functioning and eventual school failure.”[3] It involved either one or two years of half-day preschool for seven months each year and periodic home visits. One hundred twenty-three children participated, 58 children in the experimental group and 65 in the control group. All of the children were of low socioeconomic status and had IQs in the range of 70 to 85.[4] The study is frequently cited because it is the longest running study of any preschool intervention program.

Analyses show that students who participated in the preschool program fared better over the long term on a variety of educational and social measures than did children in the control group. Lawrence J. Schweinhart, now president of the High/Scope Foundation, wrote, “Program participation had positive effects on adult crime, earnings,

wealth, welfare dependence, and commitment to marriage.”[5] On the basis of those findings, Schweinhart concluded, “The program provided taxpayers a return on investment of $7.16 on the dollar.”[6] Advocates rely heavily on that figure to make their case that preschool is an investment that more than pays for itself in the long term.

The High/Scope researchers’ interpretation of the long-term findings is that the preschool program prepared children for kindergarten, which resulted in a more positive reaction by kindergarten teachers that, in turn, caused the children to have a stronger commitment to school. That is sometimes called the snowball hypothesis. Three researchers from Yale University explain,

The snowball hypothesis presumes that children who attend quality intervention programs are better prepared socially and academically when they begin school. This enables them to interact positively with their teachers, who in turn relate positively to them, and this tone of adult-child relationships continues in progressive years of school.[7]

Others posit that the home visitation component was largely responsible for the results. They hypothesize that people became more effective parents as a result of their involvement in the program. Experiences such as building relationships with teachers may help parents establish a more supportive home environment and effective “home-school linkages.”[8] At any rate, there is no consensus on which components of the program were responsible for the children’s gains. The critical question remains: how could a one- or two-year half-day preschool program produce such outstanding results?

The High/Scope researchers have been subject to heavy criticism for using nonstandard significance levels. If standard significance levels are used, many of the most “significant” differences between the experimental and control groups disappear.[9] Psychology professor Charles Locurto of the College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts has argued that the Perry results are less remarkable when all findings—not just those that favor Perry—are considered.

Locurto writes,

We might marry the large number of nonsignificant and unfavorable findings into a different picture of the Perry Project’s outcomes. We might argue that preschool training resulted in no differences in school motivation or school potential at the time of school entry, no lasting changes in IQ or achievement test performance….There were no differences in their average grades as compared to former control-group children, in their personal satisfaction with their school performance or in their self-esteem. Their parents were no more likely to talk with teachers about school work or to attend school activities and functions than control-group parents. Preschool children were more likely to have been placed in remedial education. By age 19, they were unemployed at a rate equal to that of their control-group counterparts.[10]

More important, questions have been raised concerning the Perry sample and methodology. According to Head Start co-founder and Sterling Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Yale University, Ed Zigler,

[The Perry sample] was not only nonrepresentative of children in general; there is some doubt that it was representative of even the bulk of economically disadvantaged children . . . The Perry Project poses a number of methodological difficulties . . . Children had to have a parent at home during the day, resulting in a significant difference between control and intervention groups on the variable of maternal employment . . . [and] assignment to experimental and control groups was not wholly random.[11]

Even if one believes the Perry findings are valid for disadvantaged children, they form a slippery basis for universal preschool, and caution is in order. First, in more than 40 years, no other program or study has produced results as dramatic as those found for Perry.[12] That suggests that there may have been unique conditions at the Perry Preschool that simply cannot be duplicated. As a general principle, science requires an experiment to be replicable before it is considered valid. Certainly caution is in order when it comes to applying findings to millions of children.

Second, benefits were obtained only for severely disadvantaged children at risk of “retarded intellectual functioning.” It is simply inappropriate to generalize the effects of Perry to mainstream children. This is particularly important given the research that shows some early education programs do not always benefit—and may even be harmful to—mainstream children.

Third, Perry children may have outperformed children in the control group, but they still fared poorly compared with mainstream children. For example, nearly one-third of children participating in the intensive program dropped out of high school; nearly one-third of the children were arrested; and three of five participating children received welfare assistance as adults.[13] That has led many researchers to be more level-headed about the likely effects of early intervention: “Policymakers should not assume that the widespread enrollment of low-income children and families in early childhood programs will enable children living in poverty to perform later in school and life at the levels reached by more advantaged [mainstream] children.”[14]

Finally, Perry differed significantly from regular preschool programs or what we could expect to see in a universal preschool program in Arizona. The fact that no other preschool program has ever produced results akin to Perry may be testament to that.

---

[1] Reynolds et al., 8.

[2] Lawrence J. Schweinhart, “The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40,” High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. See www.highscope.org/welcome.asp for official publication date.

[3] Zigler, Taussig, and Black, 1000.

[4] For a complete program description, see Lawrence Schweinhart and David Weikart, “The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths through Age 15: A Summary,” in the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, As the Twig Is Bent–Lasting Effects of Preschool Programs (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983): 71–81.

[5] Lawrence J. Schweinhart, “Lasting Benefits of Preschool Programs,” ERIC Digest EDO–PS–94–2 (January 1994).

[6] Lawrence J. Schweinhart, Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 27 (Ypsilante, Mich.: High/Scope Press, 1993): 55; and Schweinhart, “Lasting Benefits of Preschool Programs,” 2.

[7] Zigler, Taussig, and Black, 1002.

[8] Ibid., 1000.

[9] Charles Locurto, “Beyond IQ in Preschool Programs?” Intelligence 15 (1991): 299–305.

[10] Ibid., 303–304.

[11] Edward F. Zigler, “Formal Schooling for Four-Year-Olds? No,” in Early Schooling: The National Debate, Sharon L. Kagan and Edward F. Zigler eds. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. 1987): 30–31.

[12] Ron Haskins, “Beyond Metaphor: The Efficacy of Early Childhood Education,” American Psychologist 44, no. 2 (February 1989): 279.

[13] Schweinhart, Significant Benefits, 59, 86, 106.

[14] Deanna S. Gomby et al., “Long-Term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs: Analysis and Recommendations,” in The Future of Children 5, no. 3 (Winter 1995): 14.

Learning Outside the School System

It’s easy to overlook the fact that organizations other than public schools provide education. But other organizations can also serve a valuable role in the education of the public.

The Wichita Eagle recently noted two such groups. The Wichita Chinese Association offers classes in Chinese and English. Meanwhile, the Wichita Indochinese Center offers classes in English for immigrants.

(Schools serve Wichita’s Asian populations, Wichita Eagle, May 27)

Newsweek Rankings

Newsweek recently gave kudos to some high schools across the country, and a few in Kansas made the list. (MSNBC has the complete list; the story has several companion pieces, which talks more about the methodology of the list.)

Wichita East High made the list. The other schools from Kansas are Sumner Academy (Kansas City), Blue Valley North (Overland Park); Blue Valley West (Overland Park); Blue Valley High (Stillwell). The list is based on a ratio of AP and IB tests in a school divided by the number of students in that school.

(Newsweek: East a top school, Wichita Eagle, May 24); (Sumner again ranked in top 5 percent of high schools, Kansas City Star, May 24); (Sumner again ranked high on Newsweek list, Kansas City Kansan, May 23)

Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Utah all have total population (not student population) that is within 10 percent of the Kansas population. Three schools in Iowa made the list, as did two schools in Mississippi. Arkansas had two more schools on its list than Kansas, for a total of seven. Utah, however, blew past all those states with 14 schools on the list.

What makes the difference among the states? Jay Matthews, author of the report, had this to say:

The more schools I have examined, the more I have come to believe in the power of high-school cultures, which are different in different parts of the country for reasons that often have little to do with the usual keys to high-school performance–the incomes and educations of the parents.

In 2005, California, New York, Texas and Florida led the nation, in that order, in number of schools on the list. That was no surprise. But it was more difficult to explain why much less populous Virginia and Maryland came right after those megastates in the number of challenging high schools, and why Iowa, with some of the highest test scores in the country, had only three high schools that met the criteria. Six states had no schools on the list at all.

My tentative explanation is that some areas have had the good fortune to get school boards and superintendents who see that they serve their students better by opening up AP and IB to everyone. Once a few districts in a state do that, others follow. And once a state has success with AP or IB, its neighboring states begin to wonder why they aren’t doing the same.

Value of Student-Centered Funding, Worldwide

The value of making schools compete for students is getting international attention, as a recent article in the Economist reveals.

As the article suggests, the logic behind school vouchers “is compellingly simple.” Government pays; “schools compete; standards rise; everybody gains.” It mentions the logic of the education establishment: cooperation, not competition is best, some children will be left behind in a world of vouchers.

Vouchers being used in different countries are “without ill-effects for social cohesion,” and “those that use a lottery to hand out vouchers offer proof that recipients get a better education than those that do not.”

In Columbia, a program known as PACES has been wildly popular with parents. There are more applicants than vouchers available (125,000), even though the vouchers are worth only half the price of private school tuition.

So what do they do? Select students by lottery. While that’s bad for the children who can’t get the vouchers, it’s good for researchers, who then have something like a randomized experiment to observe. So what happens? Students in the program are “much more likely” to apply to college, less likely to repeat a grade in school, and are more likely to finish high school.

The magazine makes note of Sweden, with a widespread voucher program in place since 1992.

“The result has been burgeoning variety and a breakneck expansion of the private sector. At the time of the reforms only around 1% of Swedish students were educated privately; now 10% are, and growth in private schooling continues unabated.”

Free to choose, and learn, The Economist, May 3, 2007

No Pants, No … Graduation Walk

Topeka USD 501 bounces from its graduation ceremony a student who shows up in shorts and tennis shoes.

Dress code violation bars grad from ceremony, Topeka Capital-Journal, May 22.

Are Kansas Teachers Underpaid?

In an end-of-the-school year editorial, the Wichita Eagle throws out the usual “Teachers are Underpaid” argument.

“But in seeing that no child is left behind, no element is as essential as the skilled, caring teacher. Educators deserve more support, appreciation and compensation than they get. On this final day of school and all days, we owe them.”

Certainly, teachers should be paid for a job well done. Unfortunately, pay systems are not tied in with performance, but salary schedules that have little if anything to do with performance.

(School year ending; challenges aren’t, Wichita Eagle, May 24)

On the same subject, an article in the Hutchinson Daily News (Salary talks continue at USD 308, May 25) has this fact:

According to the National Education Association, salaries for new teachers start just shy of $30,000 in Kansas. The average salary for a teacher in Kansas is $41,369.

According to the Census Bureau, the median household income in Kansas in the year 2004 was $41,664. Note that this number is for households, meaning that it includes the combined income of two wage-earners in a family. The per-person “money income” given by the bureau for the year 1999 was $20,506. A profile in the Washington Post gives the median income of males employed full-time on a year-round basis as $35,104.

None of these numbers demonstrate with certainty that teachers in Kansas are overpaid relative to other residents of the state. But they do case some doubt on the proposition that they are underpaid. We have no doubt that some are–but that some are overpaid, too. Due to many public policies (including the lack of a merit pay system for teachers), it’s hard to say one way or the other.

Achievement Gap Still a Problem

In an otherwise cheery assessment of the USD 259, the Wichita Eagle sounded this note of concern: “Still more attention is due the achievement gap between white and minority students.”

No word in the editorial about school choice, which has been shown to be especially beneficial to minority students.

(School year ending; challenges aren’t, Wichita Eagle, May 24)

Home School Networks

To follow up on yesterday’s comments on home schooling, there are multiple grassroots organizations available. We don’t endorse them, but provide them for the public benefit.

The Lawrence Area Homeschoolers Network (LAHN) calls itself “a secular, inclusive homeschooling group that supports families and encourages homeschooling in Lawrence, Kansas and surrounding areas.”

Teaching Effective Academics in Christian Homes (TEACH) is as the name suggests a group of Christians in Lawrence.

The page Homeschooling in Kansas has links to other networks.

Home schooling is a niche product, but one that works for a variety of students and their parents.  As such, it’s a part of Kansas education.

Home Schooling in Lawrence and Beyond

The Lawrence Journal-World has an interesting set of articles on home schooling in Kansas. It’s called “Learning Outside the Lines.”

More Parents Opt for Home Schooling describes the big picture.

“A study by the National Center for Education Statistics said 1.1 million students were being home schooled in 2003–the most recent year data was available– and the U.S. Department of Education estimates the number is increasing by 7 percent to 15 percent each year. Home schoolers make up 1.7 percent of the 50.2 million K-12 students in the United States.

The National Home Education Research Institute, an advocacy group that conducts its own research, estimates the number of home-schoolers to be closer to 1.7 million to 2.1 million.”

The article says that home schooling took off through the interest of hippies, but of late has been adopted by conservative Christians. Obviously, home schooling can serve people of different belief systems, as should be the case. Both types of families see similar benefits of home schooling: one-on-one teaching, more family time, less peer pressure, a flexible schedule, and a customized curriculum.

Home school by the numbers contains information from 2003. More than 1 million students (2.2 percent of the population) are taught in a home school. It also contains the fascinating observation that home-schooled students at KU had higher ACT scores as incoming freshmen than the incoming class as a whole.

Experts debate research findings looks at the methodological issues involved in evaluating home schooling as an idea. As a group, home-schooled children outperform the general population on the ACT, but the group that administers the test says that there are too few numbers involved to make statistically valid comparisons. The article sensibly closes with a quote from a KU professor who says, in brief, that home schooling can work well for some families, but not all.

Home-schoolers say socialization not a problem addresses what is perhaps the most commonly cited objection to home schooling. Critics say that home schooling shelters children from the big, bad world, and the need to negotiate with others. Yet of course no child will be sheltered indefinitely. People learn, socially as well as academically, at different rates, so this concern is most likely overblown.

Three Couples Share Reasons has a promising headline, but doesn’t get into much depth.

Locals helped change state activities policy talks about the old question of whether home-schooled children (yes) and students in virtual schools (maybe) can be excluded from extracurriculular activities of district schools.Several children and parents talk about their home schooling experience. Some use a standard curriculum, some rely on support from virtual schools.

A 14-year old, who learns at home, talks about unschooling, in Rain Quinlan deals with home school stereotypes. (If her curriculum seems ill-defined, scroll down to the comments on that article to find alternatives.)

Rain’s mother offers her view of the experience in Sarah Sobonya says unschooling led to creativity. “There’s an idea among some people that home schooling parents need to know everything their children will learn, or they’ll need to hire a tutor for those topics. I haven’t found this to be true,” she writes.

Kansas home school laws open to interpretation discusses the ambiguous state of home schools in Kansas.
“Kansas does not specifically recognize home schools. Technically, home schools are considered nonaccredited private schools, says Kevin Ireland, a Kansas Department of Education staff attorney. Such schools are not accredited or approved in any way by the state, although they must register the name and address of their school with the Kansas Board of Education.” It also mentions that Rep. Pat Colloton, D-Leawood, would like to increase state regulation of home schools–but that home schoolers are a politically active bunch.

Meanwhile, National Group Pleased with Kansas Home School Laws.

In former home-schoolers transition to college, work, we hear from some students themselves. Our favorite? A former home-schooled student now at KU. On some occasions, he plays the stereotype. “People think I live under a rock. It’s really weird. Sometimes I tell people, ‘I’m a hermit. I live in a cave. You’re the first person I’ve seen all year.’”

Colleges look to recruit home-schoolers quotes one college official: “Academically, home-schoolers are typically very well prepared for college, due to the discipline and self-motivation required to home school. We’re happy to have them.”

Finally, the audio and video files are good complements to the articles.

Staff Recommendations for Charter Schools

A federal grant that Kansas earned last year for a charter school initiative included money for up to 25 charter schools. In March an outside panel assessed petitions and made recommendations to the KSBE.

The recommendations are in the file KSDE Charter School Recommendation, which is a PowerPoint file. (The file is currently available from the charter school page of the KSDE web site.)

Here are some of the highlights of the file:

21 applications were submitted to the KSDE by local school boards. There was, however, money to help 25 charter schools get started. (The Flint Hills Center for Public Policy has argued that the requirement for local board approval hinders the development of charter schools.)

17 applications passed the review conducted by an outside panel convened by the KSDE.

10 applications were recommended for funding. In order of ranking, the proposals were approved by Kansas City, Parsons, Hutchinson, Elkhart, Newton, Pratt, Renwick, Erie, Haysville, and McPherson. (The linked file includes one slide for each proposal.)

The other 7 applications were approved but not recommended for funding. The unlucky 7 were: Kinley-Offerle, Burrton, Abiline, Independence, Little River, Ulysses, and Waconda.

3 previously approved (but non-funded) applications are eligible for this year’s grant. They are Stafford High School, Turner Virtual Learning Center, and Sterling Academy.

Transfer Option in NCLB to be Made Weaker?

Under No Child Left Behind, some students are able to transfer to other schools. That’s not a bad thing, if you’re a student who would benefit from a different environment. But that provision would be crippled if a proposed change to the law takes place.

Under a measure supported by Jerry Moran and Dennis Moore, two members of the Kansas congressional delegation, “‘Failing’ schools would have one year to improve before students could transfer to another school. Currently, transfer is an immediate option.”

A year’s delay in finding a better school could have a serious impact on a student’s academic career. Why would that be a good thing?

(Moore at work on NCLB, KC Community News, May 16).

Spending Plans in Topeka

A few items caught our eye about the Topeka 501 school district:

A $2 million building program (USD 501 OKs first phase of school improvements, Capital-Journal, May 18)

The board will pay a new superintendent $200,000 (School Districts Plan to Spend Big, WIBW-13, May 18)

New Authority for Technical Education Created

From the Wichita Eagle:

Kansas has taken the first step toward standardized statewide technical education programs, certification, credits and costs with the establishment of the Postsecondary Technical Education Authority. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signed a law creating the authority and authorizing $917,000 in funding last week.

The authority, a seven-member board structured within the Board of Regents, will oversee all facets of technical education classes, whether offered by community colleges, technical schools or Regents institutions. It was created on the recommendation of the Kansas Technical College and Vocational School Commission, which worked for more than a year to devise a plan for moving technical education forward.

(7-member board to oversee state’s technical training, May 20)

Students Forced to Move to New Schools

The Lawrence school board will introduce all-day kindergarten to eight schools this fall. The schools are based on economic and academic factors.

Source: 8 schools get all-day kindergarten, Lawrence Journal World, May 15.

New Commissioner at KSDE

The new majority of the state board of education has a new commissioner of education: Alexa Posney.

“Posny has long been a favorite of moderates on the board, dating to her previous tenure with the state Department of Education. She is a former deputy education commissioner overseeing curriculum and accreditation programs, leaving that post in 2006 to work for the U.S. Department of Education. … Posny will start July 1 at a salary of $165,000 a year.”

The Lawrence Journal-World reminds us of the size and scope of the schooling system in Kansas: “Posny will lead an agency that administers approximately $3.1 billion in funding to 450,000 students and tens of thousands of teachers spread over small, medium and large school districts.”

Welcome back to Kansas. commissioner. And good luck.
Board names new Kansas education commissioner. Wichita Eagle, May 9.

Long time education official takes over at state agency, Lawrence Journal-World.

NCLB Defended

There are various arguments to be made against No Child Left Behind, some valid, some less so. Mary Cohen responds in an op-ed in the Wichita Eagle:

READER VIEW: NO CHILD LAW IS WORKING (May 4)

When I read The Eagle editorial “Fix it: No Child must change” (April 16 Opinion), I was reminded of the saying, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

It has been five years since the No Child Left Behind Act was passed. We now have a track record to go by, and it’s a good one. Our students have made strong academic progress, particularly in the early grades. Reading and math scores are at all-time highs in several categories, and achievement gaps are finally beginning to close. In Kansas, the number of fifth-graders becoming proficient in reading rose 10 percentage points in just two years (2002-04), while fourth-grader proficiency in math improved by 13 percentage points.

True, no law is perfect. We are working with Congress and the states to make constructive changes to the law. New flexibilities have been added, such as the use of “growth models” and modified assessments for students with severe cognitive disabilities. But the core principle of annual student assessments must not change. Assessments are the key to accountability. Without them, teachers will not have the data they need to see the problem and solve it. And more kids will fall through the cracks.

This debate is not new.

Kansas’ initial effort to strengthen its accountability was called “Quality Performance Accreditation.” When QPA was passed, there were similar warnings of loss of local control, “teaching to the test” and lack of creativity. Yet after several years, most educators couldn’t imagine operating without QPA because it caused the schools and teachers to focus on what was expected of their students.

The same is true of the No Child Left Behind law.

This is not the time to turn our backs on the progress we have made. If our nation is to remain competitive, we must continually push for higher standards and accountability. Our competitors across the globe certainly are not looking for ways to “opt out” of their education systems. And neither should we.

MARY COHEN
Regional representative
U.S. Department of Education
Kansas City, Mo.

Growth models could be a promising addition to the law.

Brain Development Requires Preschool?

Our op-ed on early childhood education has drawn a response from an advocate of taxpayer-funded preschool in the article “LEADELL EDIGER: STATE NEEDS MORE QUALITY PRESCHOOLS.”Ediger is the executive director of KACCRRA, the Kansas Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies.

I was startled by the commentary by John R. LaPlante (“Science doesn’t support claims about preschool,” May 2 Opinion).

The problem appears to be that LaPlante decided first that he believes education should be sold to the highest bidder; then he contorted the facts to fit his preconceived notion. Commonsense Kansans know better.

Here’s what you need to know about early childhood education.

First, the programs that work best are voluntary, high-quality programs that give parents control over whether or not their child participates. That these programs are voluntary somehow eluded LaPlante. The state’s goal is simply to expand the number of voluntary, high-quality programs from which parents and children can choose.

Second, 90 percent of a child’s brain development occurs before the age of 5. That science is indisputable. However, since kindergarten doesn’t begin until after a child turns 5, early learning programs such as prekindergarten and Early Head Start provide crucial support that leads to future success.

Third, early childhood education is the best way to improve outcomes in the K-12 system. Children who participate in early learning programs are more likely to enter kindergarten ready to learn, more likely to read at the proper level by the third grade, and more likely to graduate from high school and even college.

Finally, early childhood education pays for itself. Numerous studies have proved that for every $1 spent on early childhood education, the state saves $7 in return. That’s because children who participate in these programs are less likely to get in trouble with law enforcement, are less likely to smoke, and are more likely to become positive contributors to the Kansas economy.

Kansas legislators understand these facts, and that’s why a bipartisan group of legislators recently supported expanding prekindergarten pilot sites and access to Early Head Start in rural and underserved communities around the state.

Supporters of early childhood education in Kansas — including parents, teachers, business leaders and law enforcement officials — have gotten together to form a coalition called the Kansas Coalition for School Readiness.

The coalition members appreciate and understand the value of early learning and, working together, we’re going to continue to expand access to voluntary, high-quality early childhood education.

A few comments:

Highest bidder? Our op-ed was all about questioning, not advocating, the “sale” of preschool services. Can you define the word “non sequitur” again?

Nowhere does this commentary address our initial concerns, especially the fact that the “$7 saved for each $1 invested” argument is based on studies of questionable methodology.

Of greater concern is the failure of the education establishment to properly educate all children in its trust already, the appeals to flawed studies, and the resultant question of the desirability of taxpayer funded preschool. Further, the appeal to brain science sounds terribly deterministic. The idea that if your child is not in the best preschool by age 1 his chances for success are doomed reminds us of the Diane Keaton comedy Baby Boom. Further, the book The Myth of the First Three Years provides some sobering rejoinders to the rush to preschool.

Finally, a note on voluntary versus mandatory enrollment. One thing is clear: enrollment may be voluntary, but public payment of the services would not be, if advocates such as Ediger succeed.

Recently, the chairman of the House education committee called for lowering the age of mandatory enrollment in education.  The proposal didn’t get anywhere, but the trial balloon shows that the expansion of a government program dealing with schooling is not impossible. Another possibility for mandatory enrollment: a revision to welfare reform. Now, we’re not saying that mandatory enrollment is a major concern–we think its prospects slim indeed–but it is something worth noting.

Voluntary funding of preschool programs? Great. Go ahead and try. Taxpayer funding? An overly ambitious program that neglects (as does Ediger’s column does) a proven tool of boosting student achievement: competition and school choice.

Crowding in Topeka

State Street elementary school in USD 501 Topeka is too small for its student population. So what to do? The school board recently put the project higher on its priority list of capital projects. The cost of the project is estimated at $1.5 million. Some of that money would also go to security measures.

This story points out a seldom-mentioned advantage of enhanced school choice: if students are able to take a tax credit or public scholarship from a government school to a private school, their movement could relieve the pressure for remodeling or new buildings, at least in some cases.

(USD 501 examines overcrowding, Topeka Capital-Journal, May 4)

Uniformly Dressed?

More schools in USD 259 Wichita are adopting a policy mandating school uniforms:

Site councils at Marshall and Mead have endorsed joining 20 other Wichita public schools that already require “standardized dress.”

Mead parents and teachers will vote May 17. At Marshall, more than 80 percent of parents and 90 percent of teachers voted to adopt the new dress code, said principal Mark Jolliffe.

The new Marshall dress code gives students the option of khaki or blue pants or blue jeans, with white, navy blue or maroon shirts, or Marshall T-shirts.

Jolliffe said that the dress code will create a safe and orderly environment.

Mike Shaw, principal at Mead, agreed.

“It’s part of an overall safety program,” he said. “We struggled with baggy pants and inappropriate shirts.”

Source: More local middle schools beef up dress codes, Wichita Eagle, May 4.

Laptops for All?

Should schools purchase and distribute laptops to all students? There are things to be said on either side of the question. Certainly Internet research is useful for many educational and business purposes, for example. But as the New York Times reports, some schools are finding a downside to the idea–and pulling the plug.

LIVERPOOL, N.Y. — The students at Liverpool High have used their school-issued laptops to exchange answers on tests, download pornography and hack into local businesses. When the school tightened its network security, a 10th grader not only found a way around it but also posted step-by-step instructions on the Web for others to follow (which they did).

Scores of the leased laptops break down each month, and every other morning, when the entire school has study hall, the network inevitably freezes because of the sheer number of students roaming the Internet instead of getting help from teachers.

So the Liverpool Central School District, just outside Syracuse, has decided to phase out laptops starting this fall, joining a handful of other schools around the country that adopted one-to-one computing programs and are now abandoning them as educationally empty — and worse.

The president of the school board said that there was no evidence that the computers had a positive impact on student achievement. This was after seven years of using them. Mark Lawson called the computers “a distraction” to learning.

Among the other drawbacks of laptop programs include resistance from teachers and rising maintenance costs. There are also cases of students using the computers to play video games, download pornography, and engage in social chat.

The Times does not specify how many schools are pulling back from laptop programs, but says that they are found across demographic categories of income and geography.

On the other hand, advocates of the programs say that schools have not spent enough time and effort adapting to the computers.

Reference: Seeing No Progress, Some Schools Drop Laptops , May 4, 2007

More on the 2007 Session

The reviews of the 2007 legislative session continue to come in.

The Kansas City Star (“Gambling top issue decided by Kansas Legislature“) started its story this way: “Millions in tax cuts for businesses, low-income homeowners and the elderly. An ambitious start at health-care reform. And $310 million for university building repairs.” Oh yes, the gambling issue, too.

The Lawrence Journal-World ( “As legislators finish budget, spending worries some“) notes that “The budget increases aid to public schools [by $29.9 million], provides $50 million to help fix crumbling higher education buildings, boosts spending on social services and gives pay raises and bonuses to state employees. It allows the state to expand its prison system and even contains money to keep the Kansas Sports Hall of Fame from closing.”

It further observed that “lawmakers committed to big increases in aid to schools” last year. On the same subject, it says “the budget sets aside $123 million for schools that was promised last year but won’t be spent until fiscal year 2009.”

The increased role of government into the pre-K years continued: “$3 million to expand a state program providing educational services for pre-kindergarten-aged, at-risk children.” On a related topic there was also “$250,000 to expand the Parents as Teachers program under the Department of Education to an additional 595 students.”

The legislature also allocated another $500,000 for a teacher mentoring program. (Isn’t that what the rest of us call “learning the ropes?” Perhaps that should simply be part of the incumbent staff’s job responsibility, without further taxpayer spending.)

The Emporia Gazette offers a Q&A (“Governor: Legislative Session Productive“) . On education, Governor Sebelius had this to say: “The session continued our commitment to excellent education. K-12 education funding is secure and moved ahead early. … The other piece of the puzzle that I put in the budget, and I am hopeful we are both in agreement on, is early childhood education. I know we will have an increase in Head Start money aimed at the most at-risk children, 3- and 4-year-olds. But also we have a number of pilot projects that were funded for the first time this year that have been enormously successful. This year, we sought to triple the number of classroom projects we have. So really a major investment in both early childhood development and higher education are part of the framework this year.”

Wrap-up of the Legislative Session

KSDE has gone into podcasting.

On the KSDE home page, selecting News and then Podcasts will take you to some audio (and video) files from Dale Dennis (Interim Commissioner) and Veryl Peter (Director of School Finance). Look for the files “Legislative Update.”

The most recent update was recorded on May 2. In it, Dennis (with a few comments from Peter along the way) reviews the most significant legislation of the past legislative session. The roughly 25 minute presentation is divided into five segment.

We’re not sure whether these files can actually be used on an iPod or not. We were unable to import them into the iTunes software. You can hear (and see)  the files in the Windows Media player, which comes standard on many computers.

Here are some notes of the presentation.  Most of it is composed of paraphrases rather than direct quotes.

Part 1:

Increase of base aid per pupil

Increase in the weighting of at-risk students

Threshold for getting high-enrollment weighting has gone down

SB 68

Funds non-proficiency at-risk students, and says states must have an anti-bullying policy.

“Highly encourages” character education in all grades. “Gets close” to a mandate.

 

Part 2:

Update your crisis plan.

 
SB 95: No more juvenile detention facilities, but instead ‘psychiatric treatment facilities.” No other change.

SB 109: Lets districts pay new hires before schools open, as long as they are working.

SB 129: Schools must notify law enforcement of any student suspensions or expulsions. Law enforcement will notify drivers services, which will pull drivers licenses of offending students.

All day K:

Governor proposed 5-year phase in. “Everybody thinks all-day kindergarten is a great deal, unfortunately this year the money ran out.” It will not be implemented.

SB 362 KPERS: Lets non-school government employees sing up right away and not wait for a year. (School employees already had this.) Has a 5-year vesting provision. Multiplier .175 is the same. You can use a 3-year average for determining benefits. Now changed to a 5-year average for any who start after July 1, 2009. Normal retirement age is 65 +5 of services or 60 years old with 30 years of service

Part 3

Adds 2 percent COLA for 65+. Employee contribution is now 4 percent. Now, it will be (for 2009 hires) 6 percent contribution. Rate will match what the state contribution is in the future. There is also a $300, one time payment for people who retired in prior to July 1, 1997.

Unfunded liability of KPERS is a problem. Through 2033, this bill will save the state $2.6 billion, at least half of the unfunded liability will be addressed this way.

SB 2185

Covers 5 teacher scholarship programs, especially noteworthy for loan cancellation.

Other:

Idea to hold a second student count during the school year did not pass.

SB 2310

Local option budget is at 31 percent max. You have to have an election to use this. If you have a declining enrollment or COLA levy last year, you may continue what you had last year. This affects only a few districts.

Part 4

Most districts have to have an election to go from 30 percent to 31 percent LOB. They don’t think that having an election is worth the trouble for that one percent.

SB 2368

More about LOB. Allows a district to go to 32 percent with an election. Also: $400,000 for an after-school program, requires local match, 2-hour program, and a summer program. No school can get ore than $25,000 from the state

Teacher mentoring: $1,000 per teachers to serve as mentors to year-one teachers. Includes $500 for mentoring a second-year teacher.

Special ed: Still working on how much supplementary fund districts will get. 

Part 5

Go after every dollar of Medicaid that you can (Medicaid). Funding could go up to $26,500 for special ed. “That isn’t too bad.”

We’ve seen a lot of post audit activity. Recruitment and retention report: not much new. There will be a problem; 33 percent are 50+, 25 percent will be eligible for KPERS in 5 years.

Virtual schools: said we are lax and need to follow the original plan for monitoring. Districts may not give virtual school students to other districts. We will go back to original guidelines within 10 years. The rules were there but we did not monitor them.

There will be a charter school out in the next week to ten days.

An early childhood ed audit is underway.

There will be another audit for voc ed. The focus will be on the cost of individual programs.

Don’t Rush into Preschool Programs

Today’s Wichita Eagle contains a critique of one argument used to justify government involvement in early childhood education. For more on this subject, see

Science Doesn’t Support Claims About Preschool
By John R. LaPlante

Should Kansans expand taxpayer-funded preschool? It’s a favorite cause of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, and a number of legislators are on board. The promised cost savings make the idea sound compelling, but is it?

Let’s start with the research used by advocates, who claim that money spent on preschool will avoid later social spending.

A recent Eagle article cited studies from Chicago, Michigan and North Carolina (“Lessons start now,” April 22 Eagle). These flawed studies, however, are no grounds for government parenting.

No study has produced as dramatic results as the Perry (Michigan) study. Ron Haskins, a consultant to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, reminds us that while the study looks promising, “its results have never been fully replicated.” This suggests that there was something unique about the Perry circumstances.

Further, the results were in some ways not that impressive after all. By the time the 123 children had reached age 19, nearly a third had been arrested.

The (Abecedarian) North Carolina study, started in 1972, is an even less useful precedent. As with Perry, there are questions about how representative its sample was. Experts can’t even agree on what caused its positive outcomes.

Haskins calls it “one step away from foster care,” since it enrolled children in 40-hour-per-week, year-round day care when they were 4 months old. (Are Kansans willing to turn children this young over to a bureaucracy?) Because Abecedarian was a five-year experiment, it was extraordinarily expensive. Haskins estimates it would cost $100,000 per child if implemented today — more costly than four years at the University of Kansas or Kansas State University.

The Chicago experiment, meanwhile, did not use random assignment, the gold standard for social research, meaning that its findings also are suspect.

Instead of putting even more money into the same old programs, the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy recommends that Kansas foster educational improvement by making schools compete for students. Funding the student would promote greater choice and accountability, and spur all schools to excel.

The merits of preschool versus competition among schools have already been tested. Matthew Ladner of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute observed that the academic gains of preschool students in Arizona disappeared by the fifth grade. The schools that faced the greatest competition for students, on the other hand, achieved significant gains in student scores.

Arizona offers tax credits for private-school tuition. The state also makes it much easier for competent authorities to open a charter school than is the case in Kansas, and Arizona generally makes greater use of competition.

Rather than heed the siren call of expensive preschool programs based on uncertain science, Kansans who care about children ought to employ a competition-based approach to school funding.

John R. LaPlante is an education policy fellow with the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy in Wichita.

 

—————–

For more on this topic, see All-day K and Pre-K: An Idea Whose Time Has Come? (PDF) Flint Hills Center for Public Policy, as well as Early Childhood is the Cure?