Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you suggesting that if it's not cost-effective in terms of better grades in the long term, that it should be abolished?
I'm guessing that pre-school has other benefits, such as providing socialization for young children, and permitting parents (i.e. mothers) to work.
Not in terms of grades but learning outcomes. Yes if it doesn't provide as good a value as something else, it should be abolished. I'm just looking for the best educational outcome for the cost.
Not in terms of grades but learning outcomes. Yes if it doesn't provide as good a value as something else, it should be abolished. I'm just looking for the best educational outcome for the cost.
So where is your data supporting your position?
BTW, I disagree with the poster you quoted who stated "permitting parents (i.e. mothers) to work" as a benefit. Firstly, education should not be equated with child care, and secondly, the hours a preschool runs is barely time to go grocery shopping, let alone hold down a job.
The gender component I referenced has to do with societal perception of child care as a predominately female role. Historically, caring for young children has been seen as "women's work". As a result, teaching young children is often viewed as an extension of a mother's role, as especially in the early years, it is more child care than education. Moms who take care of their own kids don't earn income for it (while you could make an argument that stay at home moms can be financially compensated in a way by their partner's income, that partner would earn the same income for their work regardless of whether or not they had a spouse or children, so SAHMs aren't "earning" income but rather sharing it.) When a cultural perception exists that child rearing is a mom's job and she should do it without financial compensation, I think this impacts the cultural perception of jobs that are natural outgrowths of mothering (i.e. early childhood educators, daycare workers, nannies, etc.)
Teaching in general, particularly in early education, is a majority female field. Wage disparity still exists across the board, but it is well known that female dominated fields have historically had lower wages to begin with and lower wage ceilings. In addition, most female dominated fields garner less respect than male dominated fields in terms of general cultural perception - at least in this country. I think all of this factors into the paltry wages of early childhood educators.
I agree. It is a cultural phenomenon that is not universal.
In some places, teaching is a male dominated field once you leave the early years. The higher up in grade/specialty you go, the more patriarchal it becomes until it becomes particularly rare to see a female professor/ Dean etc at the university level.
I’m not sure whether that’s the case here as well, but i had less than five female teachers in any subject from middle school through high school (Secondary school). Plenty of them in Primary school and Kindergarten. And that wasn't unique to the schools i attended.
Interestingly in places where teaching is male dominated, it is also compensated better and is generally held in higher regard. They hold a status similar to first responders or military personnel here.
BTW, I disagree with the poster you quoted who stated "permitting parents (i.e. mothers) to work" as a benefit. Firstly, education should not be equated with child care, and secondly, the hours a preschool runs is barely time to go grocery shopping, let alone hold down a job.
I'm not asking for funding; rather I'm questioning the value of spending resources on preschool vs long term gains. The burden of proof is on those who want funding for preschool to prove that it is valuable. There ate enought studies that question the long term value to indicate we should be requiring greater proof of ROI so to speak or move that funding elsewhere.
BTW I agree with you that education should not be equated with child care.
I'm not asking for funding; rather I'm questioning the value of spending resources on preschool vs long term gains. The burden of proof is on those who want funding for preschool to prove that it is valuable. There ate enought studies that question the long term value to indicate we should be requiring greater proof of ROI so to speak or move that funding elsewhere.
BTW I agree with you that education should not be equated with child care.
I will point out you were pretty clear in your opinion; you did not appear to be questioning. Here's your statement: "What I am talking about is the push for publicly funded preschool at younger and younger ages. That comes at the expense of other programs which could produce greater long term benefit to both student and community. Best use of taxpayer dollars."
You are the one making the claim that preschool is not valuable; you should be able to support your claim.
The conclusion: "In conclusion, the scientific rationale, the uniformly positive evidence of impact on kindergarten readiness, and the nascent body of ongoing inquiry about long-term impacts lead us to conclude that continued implementation of scaled-up pre-k programs is in order as long as the implementation is accompanied by rigorous evaluation of impact."
[SIZE=3]Itis not up to me to prove a negative, but up to the proponents to prove thepositive. The Brookings report itself indicates the value is kindergartenreadiness and that long term effects are nebulous.
Convincingevidence on the longer-term impacts of scaled-up pre-k programs on academicoutcomes and school progress is sparse, precluding broad conclusions. Theevidence that does exist often shows that pre-k-induced improvements inlearning are detectable during elementary school, but studiesalso reveal null or negative longer-term impacts for some programs.
Thisis precisely what I’m referring to – the lack of long term gain vs the cost. As others have noted, the fact that it helpsprepare kids for kindergarten does not seem to last beyond the early elementarygrades. Funds for education are notinfinite and choices must be made. Currently the data do not support this as a best value use ofresources.
The report itself (not really a report but a collection of articles) didn't really address the question of long term value directly (at least that I could find on a quick review) other than in the introduction as noted above.
It's up to you to back up your claims. You can certainly prove that "spending money on preschool education does not improve outcomes" if the evidence is there.
It's up to you to back up your claims. You can certainly prove that "spending money on preschool education does not improve outcomes" if the evidence is there.
Again you are just challenging me to prove a negative, no matter how you try to twist it. Even so the quote above, from your source, "studies also reveal null or negative long term impacts" shows that the claims supporting preschool are invalid. And hence don't justify funding.
Again you are just challenging me to prove a negative, no matter how you try to twist it. Even so the quote above, from your source, "studies also reveal null or negative long term impacts" shows that the claims supporting preschool are invalid. And hence don't justify funding.
Challenging you to "prove a negative" would be asking you to prove that "aliens don't exist" or some such. Proving that preschool does not improve outcomes in later years can be done, if there is evidence. Head Start, which is sort of the granddaddy of public pre-school programs, has been around since 1965. Some of the first kids involved would be in their late 50s by now.
What page is that little quote on, out of 106 pages of that report? Something tells me you're cherry picking. Many of these reports look at lots of studies, so a statement that (some) "studies reveal null or negative long-term impacts", while others show the opposite, would not be unexpected. I will point out that the conclusion says: "In conclusion, the scientific rationale, the uniformly positive evidence of impact on kindergarten readiness, and the nascent body of ongoing inquiry about long-term impacts lead us to conclude that continued implementation of scaled-up pre-k programs is in order as long as the implementation is accompanied by rigorous evaluation of impact."
The REAL money question is WHAT ARE OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE WORTH?
How about the risk adjusted, present value of his future stream of earnings minus the costs of keeping him alive?
Last edited by SportyandMisty; 04-06-2018 at 10:37 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
