Hellobee Boards

@Mrs. Jacks: Respectfully disagree, based on this article on Oklahoma's universal pre-k program:

The gains he found in 2002-2003 were among the biggest ever documented for a universal pre-K program. By the time they started kindergarten, pre-K kids were nine months ahead of their peers with the skills necessary for reading, like recognizing letters and being able to tell stories. They were seven months ahead in pre-writing, including the ability to hold a pencil, and five months ahead in counting and other pre-math skills. The four-year-olds who had been through CAP’s Head Start, as opposed to the regular state pre-K program in Tulsa public schools, were equally ahead in math, though not quite as dramatically ahead when it came to early literacy. (This is likely because Head Start, in addition to its academic goals, has a broader mission, including improving children’s health, establishing their sense of responsibility to society, and increasing their self-worth.) The most impressive part was that the gains were throughout this entire population. Though the poorest kids were helped the most, all of Tulsa’s kids got a boost from pre-K.

http://prospect.org/article/pre-k-range

@Mrs. Jacks: My only qualm with articles like that Slate one is that it makes preschool sound like a waste of time. I agree that kids from higher SES families fare better academically than kids in low SES families, even with preschool out of the equation. I don't think preschool is a must for every kid (and I certainly think which "type" matters even less), but I do think preschool is good for most kids no matter what academic tests/research shows.

Also, people twist this type of research around in order to deny the need for any preschool, thus depriving low SES kids. I wish the research would be taken and articles would be written about how important it is for those kids in need to have access to preschool, rather than saying "Hey [rich] parents, it doesn't matter anyway!"