[Editor’s Note: Bill Stamatis, a retired teacher and the UFT’s former director of online communications, blogs at Crow Man Blues, where this post originally appeared.]
There is no denying the fact that the earlier children are exposed to a high quality, organized learning environment, the more successful they will be in school and in life.
The classic Head Start, founded in 1965, and more recently, the Early Head Start (for infants and toddlers) programs have made positive impacts on the academic and social development of children and their families. The overall goal of these programs is to develop school-readiness for the children of low-income families. Even though there are uneven results because children score higher on academic measures early, but later, especially for minority children, the scores drop to the levels of those children who never attended pre-school programs. However, there are collateral benefits like greater earning power, more stable marriages, reduced dependence on welfare, less time on average in the penal system and lower rates of drug use for those who attended early childhood preschool programs.
Despite under-financing, mixed reviews and what some may characterize as “soft-statistics,” the programs have staved off “bang-for-the-buck” critics and continue to service under-privileged children. That’s because most everyone sees the benefits: White children have a 22 percent higher high school graduation rate; African-American youth have a 12 percent less chance of being charged with a crime and being arrested. (The increase in academic achievement for African-American youth, however, is not statistically significant after the third or fourth grade.)(See Ludwig and Phillips, 2007)
Even the “bang-for-the-buckers” know that studies show that Head Start has a 7 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. That means that for every dollar spent for pre-school programs you get a benefit equal to at least 7 dollars. (Just consider what it costs to incarcerate our youth.)Those same studies show that there is a direct relationship with increased funding to an increase in school attainment and a likelihood of attending some college.
So maybe, Obama has it right! He is making early childhood education the keystone of his education program and proposes spending $10 billion a year on his “Zero to Five” pre-school proposal. That kind of an investment could even provide a higher benefit-cost ratio.
7 Comments:
1 JW
· Jun 12, 2008 at 5:34 pm
So, why did the UFT rush to Hillary? Tell me again, I forgot.
2 Bill Stamatis
· Jun 12, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Well, how about this from Clinton’s web site:
Early Childhood Education:
* Nurse home visitation programs to help new parents develop parenting skills.
* Quality child care and Head Start.
* Pre-kindergarten for all four-year olds.
I think I could have lived with that. However, now that we’re facing Obama as the Dem. candidate, I am taking a closer look.
3 JW
· Jun 12, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Whether Hillary or Obama had the better ed platform this primary season matters less to me than the UFT making an endorsement without polling the membership.
I’ll vote for any Democrat in the general election, of course, and the UFT could have done the same: endorse the Democratic choice, whichever candidate the party would eventually put forward by the end of the primary season. I don’t think they had to endorse one of the two candidates specifically.
So, my question still holds. Why did the UFT think it was necessary to jump in on Hillary, especially without asking members which way they were leaning?
4 Leo Casey
· Jun 13, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Julie:
Your information is incorrect.
First, in a national election, the endorsement is made by the national union, the AFT. The AFT endorsed Hillary Clinton, and the UFT’s participation in the primary elections was based on that national endorsement. That is how we have always done national endorsements.
Secondly, the AFT commissioned extensive, scientific polling of the membership, and the decision to endorse was taken with the results of those polls in hand. The national membership supported the endorsement of Hillary over Obama by better than 2 to 1 and over Edwards by better than 3 to 1. In New York, those numbers were even more in favor of Hillary.
5 JW
· Jun 13, 2008 at 5:48 pm
If endorsement by the national union is the way it’s always been done, is this procedure codified in the by-laws that it has to be done that way? If so, I’d like to know where I can see this text.
Failing codification, it’s a question of custom, which doesn’t mean it’s actually the right way, or the most democratic way to endorse a candidate, or even that it should be continued to be done this way.
As to the “extensive, scientific polling of the membership” done by the AFT : Neither I nor anyone I know in the most recent primary season or in any other primary season as long as I’ve been a teacher has ever been polled by the AFT. How scientific or extensive could it be? And what does that mean anyway?
I’ve read that the UFT and AFT had ties with Clintons as far back as the 80s. Obviously, Weingarten had every intention to honor that bond, and maybe even to gain from the endorsement personally. It was not in her interest or anyone else’s at the national level to find out who the members really wanted, whether Obama, Clinton, Edwards or any of the others.
The UFT is the largest member of the AFT, and I can’t imagine the AFT acting contrary to the wishes of the UFT. What the UFT says is the way the AFT goes, it seems to me, and not the other way around. The “scientific” polls could well have been manufactured, for all we’ve been told about them.
On ed issues, I’m not a rabid Obama fan. I just believe this is all political and who the membership wants to endorse has little do with anything. If you stand by those “scientific” polls, then I’d like to know I can get a hold of the questions, the names of the participating locals, the percentages of members polled, and similar kinds of information.
(And parenthetically, if I signed my comments XYZ or something like that, would you still have called me Julie? I’m wondering about the protocol here at this blog.)
6 phyllis c. murray
· Jun 14, 2008 at 6:25 pm
The Crisis in Education Continues: How will it end?
By Phyllis C. Murray
“There is no denying the fact that the earlier children are exposed to a high quality, organized learning environment, the more successful they will be in school and in life. From:”Connecting the Tots…Obama’s Education Plan By Bill Stamatis
“Almost half the nation’s school districts have significantly decreased the daily class time spent on subjects like science, art and history as a result of the federal No Child Left Behind law’s focus on annual tests in reading and math, according to a new report released yesterday. From: Focus on 2 R’s Cuts Time for the Rest, Report Says -New York Times July 2007
There is a crisis in education . This state of crisis in the schools is not new. The minority populations have felt this for a very long time. In 1972 I began to chronicle the events in the school as parent involvement began to become an issue. And now in retrospect, I can see that the idea of public education as big business and its failure to produce a marketable product is not new; nor is the inability of our students to pick up the ladder of social and economic mobility which rests horizontally at the base of all walls that surround the inner-city.
In 1964 Martin Luther King warned us about partially educating youth in the following statement: “huge masses are left handicapped in the shadows of ignorance and submerged in second class status.”
But the crisis continued in 2006.
“We are told of one stunning educational success after another with ever more children passing the standardized tests. But in reality, the city’s public school students, particularly those students of color in inner city neighborhoods, are receiving a less than quality education.” EDUCATION PLANNING COUNCIL OF HARLEM/NY July 2006
“The system still fails to educate its African American and Latino students to the degree that they are ill-equipped to compete, academically and intellectually, with children of other racial and ethnic groups, attending schools in other neighborhoods. Our children are graduating at too low a percentage, we can also say poorly prepared for the challenges of higher education and fulfilling, lucrative new millennium careers.”EDUCATION PLANNING COUNCIL OF HARLEM/NY July 2006
These statements are not new. Our youth are in crisis. And the educational system is in crisis. This means that we need to look for ways to end the cycle of failure which is systemic throughout the impoverished inner city communities. Everyone should be involved in the process of ameliorating this situation. If not, that is the problem.
Since one size does not fit all, we should certainly try to look at exemplary programs for our schools which will work. Of course there are success stories whenever these programs work and enable students to reach their academic potential. Nevertheless, we are constantly assessing the progress of students and tailoring instruction to meet their needs. The hours spent by effective teachers are incalculable. But at least as educators we try because we are dealing with human lives.We try because the alternative to not trying is too costly as prisons await those children who have failed to become productive citizens. We try because the school to prison pipeline is a reality for far too many of our students as police in our schools takeover the role once reserved for teachers and administrators.
Educators in NYC public schools, know that smaller class size is a priority; adequate resources are a priority; staff development is a priority; and parent participation is a necessity. We know that we need highly qualified teachers, paraprofessionals, social workers, guidance counselors, psychologists,mentors, administrators, and union leaders. Surely, the schools that have the aforementioned cadre of professionals are fortunate.
However, it is unfortunate that NYC has left parents and teachers out of the decision making process for too long. However, because of the UFT political action, parents and teachers have never stopped advocating for children in City Hall, in Albany and in Washington, DC. Therefore, I applaud any positive effort that is being made on behalf of children in NYC. Certainly, we have a long way to go. But we must pull out all stops to make this broken and pauperized system work.
The NYC Public School System was once a viable force for its earliest immigrants, like Henry Kissinger, who attended George Washington High School at night and worked in a shaving-brush factory during the day. Today, the NYC Public Schools must work for all of its students, again. Arthur Eisenberg is right: “The state must seek to break the cycle of discrimination and disadvantage”. Certainly, the future of America,as a strong nation, depends on it.
7 The Battle for Education: Obama, the “Bolder” versus the “Reformers,” What Will Be the Direction of Education Policy? « Ed In The Apple
· Jun 15, 2008 at 9:14 pm
[...] political conflict. We must no longer shirk from that struggle. The stakes are simply too high. Obama’s education policy is pretty vanilla, and it is likely he will steer clear of moving toward either “camp.” [...]