Universal Preschooling: The Liberal Grand Slam
Editor’s note: This op-ed is by John McClaughry, vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute.
“Universal access to early education” has become a major liberal campaign promise this year. This goal, if achieved, will culminate a ten year campaign by large businesses, child advocacy groups, the teachers union, and social service agencies to put the state in charge of the lives of all 3- and 4-year-olds not already so favored.
Sen. Peter Shumlin states the case for universal early education thus: “It will provide our children with the tools they need to succeed in school and as adults. Children enrolled in early education score higher in math and reading and are more likely to get jobs and become successful, productive members of society. Universal access to pre-K education will go a long way towards erasing the achievement gap for low socioeconomic students and students who learn differently, and put all of our children on a more level playing field. In fact, for every dollar spent on early childhood education, there is a 7 to 16 dollar return.”
Almost every part of this oft-repeated mantra is open to serious challenge, if not downright wrong.
The first sentence appears to say that the $1.5 billion a year Vermont taxpayers are spending now on public education is failing to provide our children with the tools they need to succeed in school as adults: they are failing for want of universal preschools. Strangely, this assertion is repeated by people – the educrats – who in the same breath tell us how outstanding Vermont’s public schools are.
There are idealistic Vermonters who really believe that universal preschool will produce these amazing returns, for the kids, for society, and for taxpayers. From a more hard nosed perspective, it seems clear that the primary motivating force behind the universal pre-K movement is the enthusiasm of the public education industry.
The second sentence declares that preschooled 5-year-olds exhibit higher cognitive skills than children not preschooled, and are more likely to get jobs later in life. This is obviously based on the much-debated Perry Preschool study in Ypsilanti, Mich., between 1962 and 1965. But the Perry study “treatment group” dealt with only 58 (!) poor minority children, not randomly chosen, with IQs between 70 and 85.
Further, the Perry kids had to have parents at home during school hours so the highly trained teacher-researchers could make regular home visits. And the reported $7.16 in benefits from every $1 invested (according to the president of the sponsoring foundation) was based on such facts as by age 19 only 33% had dropped out of high school, only 31% had been arrested, and only 17 of the 25 girls had gotten pregnant.
This tells us nothing about the value of spending millions of tax dollars in preschool programs for the full population of Vermont 3- and 4-year olds. A 2003 Georgia State University review of Georgia’s decade of universal preschooling (63,000 4-year olds, $1.15 billion) regretfully concluded that it had made little or no difference in educational achievement.
Closing the disadvantaged achievement gap appeals to the generous liberal mind, but universal preschool spreads the available funds over the 10 percent of the population that can benefit from more intensive early assistance, and the 90 percent for whom it won’t make any difference.
Amy Wilkins was a leader of the successful 2002 initiative campaign to mandate universal pre-K in Florida. Three years later she wrote, ruefully, that subsequent developments “strongly suggest that a universal strategy may not be the most effective way to improve and expand pre-K services for youngsters who need them most.” To put it bluntly, the Florida programs wasted millions of tax dollars on low-value services for ordinary children, while shortchanging the poor and minority kids who could have used help.
Then there is the startling claim of the “7 to 16 dollar return” for each tax dollar “invested” in universal pre-K. The $7 claim apparently comes from the sponsor of the Perry experiment. The $16 claim comes from another analysis of the Perry experiment (Rolnick & Grunewald, 2003). What these authors actually said was that the real internal rate of return at a three percent discount rate was 16% (not 16 for 1). Most of this figure derives from supposed benefits to society: the 58 Perry kids were “less disruptive in class later on, and went on to commit fewer crimes.”
There are idealistic Vermonters who really believe that universal preschool will produce these amazing returns, for the kids, for society, and for taxpayers. From a more hard nosed perspective, it seems clear that the primary motivating force behind the universal pre-K movement is the enthusiasm of the public education industry to get its hands on another two year’s supply of our children, and send yet another large bill to taxpayers.
This is in turn motivated by the fact that Vermont’s K-12 population is declining. Residential property tax pressure is forcing school districts to reduce cost per pupil. Cost per pupil can be reduced either by reducing the numerator (fewer dues-paying union teachers teaching larger classes), or by increasing the denominator (pulling thousands of 3- and 4-year olds into universal preschools). Guess which one the union prefers.
The appearance of “free” public preschools will either slash the customer base of the 350 private child care businesses, or force those businesses into a master-slave contract with the school district. Add that fact, and the proposal becomes a political grand slam for liberals seeking public office.
Unless, of course, the taxpayers and parents catch on.
