Skip to footer

Five ways to improve Obama's pre-k plan

President Obama’s plan for pre-K schooling is well intentioned: Greater access to preschool is necessary for American competitiveness. But “Preschool for All,” as the plan is known, needs vast improvement if it is to pass Congress.

Research shows that children from poor families start school substantially behind children from more advantaged backgrounds. They trail in vocabulary, knowledge of the world, social skills, and pre-academic content such as letter recognition – all of which are strongly predictive of later school success.

Good preschool programs can make up some of these gaps in experience and learning and thereby give children a fighting chance. In a 21st-century global economy, it is important that all American children have a fair shot at a good education.

But Preschool for All includes features that are neither justified by research nor contribute to the political prospects of the plan becoming law. To correct these flaws, the plan must make the following five adjustments.

1. Avoid overreach

Jason Reed/Reuters/File
President Obama plays a game with children in a pre-kindergarten classroom at College Heights Early Childhood Learning Center in Decatur, Georgia, Feb. 13.

Russ Whitehurst is senior fellow and director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution. He is the former director of the Institute of Education Sciences within the US Department of Education.

The nation has experienced unintended negative consequences of federal involvement in setting education policy, including cheating scandals associated with the testing and accountability of No Child Left Behind.

In Preschool for All, the federal government doles out $75 billion to states over 10 years. To access the funds, states have to submit an acceptable plan to make preschool accessible, without tuition, to all 4-year-olds from families with incomes no higher than 200 percent above the poverty line (about $39,000 for a household of two adults and one child).

The costs of preschool expansion would shift gradually from a predominantly federal share (paid for by a tax on cigarettes) to a predominantly state share. The program would be placed on the mandatory side of the budget along with entitlements such as Social Security.

It is one thing for the federal government to redistribute funds so states with lots of poor families get additional money to beef up their pre-K programs. It is another to tie a lot of strings to the money for how the programs will be delivered. States should be wary of this gift horse, and of a new federal entitlement for free pre-K for which they end up paying most of the costs after a few years.

1 of 5
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.