November/December
2008
Libby
Doggett, a long-time leader in early childhood education, wants
public funding for quality prekindergarten for every three- and
four-year-old in America.
Doggett, executive director of Pre-K
Now, an advocacy group formed by the Pew
Charitable Trust in 2002, says middle-income children, as well
as low-income children, deserve and can benefit from publicly funded
preK programs. Up to age five is a crucial time for brain development,
says Doggett. “That’s when they learn to talk, [to]
control their emotions and actions,” says Doggett. “PreK
can make a huge difference. And it’s not just low-income children
whose brains are developing.”
Doggett cites a wide range of studies to demonstrate
the impact of preK: increased graduation rates, better scores on
standardized tests, reduced grade repetition, and fewer special
education placements. Other studies, she says, show that students
who had attended preK were less likely to be arrested for a violent
crime, more likely to be employed, and more likely to report that
they get along well with their families.
A study of preK students in Tulsa, Okla., by William
Gormley Jr., a political science professor at Georgetown
University, found gains for students in all economic strata.
“Obviously the kids who are further behind have the most to
gain,” says Doggett. “But it’s very clear that
all kids benefit.”
She also cites a 2002
study by R. J. Coley of the Educational
Testing Service, which found that one-third of middle-class
children and a quarter of upper-middle-class children didn’t
know their alphabet on the first day of kindergarten. A 2002 study
by the Economic Policy
Institute found that the gap in reading skills for beginning
kindergartners was greater between middle-income kids and their
more affluent peers than it was between middle-income and poor children,
she notes.
She acknowledges that preK resources must first
be focused on students in low-performing schools, where many students
enter without adequate preparation. But she says policymakers can’t
lose sight of the plight of middle-class students who need help
as well. “Middle-income children have a lot of potential,
and they should do as well as the upper-income kids, if not better,”
she says. “There’s a huge opportunity for those children.
Many of them are lagging behind.”
If every child had such an experience, elementary
school curricula would change across the nation because students
would be so much better prepared to tackle academic subjects. “There
would be a ripple effect through the entire system,” says
Doggett.
Even in families where mothers or fathers can
afford to stay home with their young children, Doggett says, it’s
still important for those children to attend preK classes, where
they can learn to play with other children, learn the discipline
of a classroom routine, and learn in a structured environment. In
addition, quality preK provides the opportunity to explore new materials
in stimulating ways.
Doggett acknowledges that there’s a political
aspect to her call for universal preK programs: public opinion appears
to favor including all children in government-funded preK no matter
what their family’s income, she says. “I think it’s
important to have a voter base of appeal,” she adds.
In particular, she points to a June 2008 poll
by Peter
D. Hart Research Associates, commissioned by her organization,
showing that universal preK is a popular cause. The poll of 800
registered voters and 200 “swing voters” who typically
split their votes between Democrats and Republicans found that seven
in ten voters wanted state and local governments to provide preK
for all children. It also found that 72 percent of voters felt having
preK for all students would be important in making a persuasive
case for increasing federal preK grants.
“Many states recognize that preK isn’t
a luxury for the wealthy or something that we provide only for low-income
kids,” she says. “It should be an essential part of
every child’s education.”
|
