Comments on: Pre-K Matters

By: Finegold Hasava

Finegold Hasava — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:08:05 +0000

I’ve never been convinced that Pre-K should be the high priority for extra funding. If 0 – 3 age cohort is when the brain is evolving at the highest rate, then we as a society should be focusing on finding extra funding for this age group.

Many infants are placed in day care homes or centers at 6 weeks old because both parents or single mother go to work. The State licenses day care places and then rates them with a star system, and there is a national system for accreditation, which is the highest rating. Day care homes and centers that have a no- or low- star rating do not offer the level of developmental services to maximize readiness for school.

If we could raise all day care for ages 0 – 4 to an age appropriate system for maximum development, children could be ready when entering the K level. Head Start and Pre-K would be a part of a day care network that begins much earlier in a child’s life.

And an improved day care network would also be involved in parental development and involvement.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:31:37 +0000

Absolutely right SCM. Never in my life have I met a parent that didn’t want their child to succeed.

By: Smart City Memphis

Smart City Memphis — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:55:53 +0000

Check out The Urban Child Institute’s research. Pre-K education supported by parental involvement yields the best results. Also, read the Books from Births section in the latest Data Book. It speaks to the positive involvement of parents and the results as well.

What’s most interesting to us is that we know what works – interventions that have worked in other communities and with significant ROI. These personal family interventions – or programs like those at Porter-Leath – don’t cost much money at all but always work on a shoe string. We need to fund what works and see if we can address the problems directly and aggressively. These programs report that it’s not that parents don’t give a darn – like all of us, they draw on their own experiences inside their own families – and we have to show them options and how they give their children better opportunities in life from them.

You’re right. It is a spiral and somehow we have to interrupt it long enough to change it.

By: Eddie Settles

Eddie Settles — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:00:31 +0000

I agree with John Slater’s comment. I think pre-K researchers would do all of us a favor if they would also explore how parental engagement and pre-K education interact. From the information I have reviewed it seems that pre-K naysayers focus on the damage that lack of parental involvement/encouragement inflicts on children.

In some respects, these two factors are locked in a deadly spiral for children. If a child grows up in a home without significant parental involvement, pre-K may not be available to the child. If a parent grows up with poor experience in public education, he/she doesn’t necessarily believe that pre-K (or for that matter, primary, secondary, or undergraduate education) has any value.

How do we make the “sale” to parents who grew up in failed public education to do something different for their children?

By: John Slater

John Slater — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:32:34 +0000

The fact that we are still spending money on lawyers over suburban seclusion, rather that on pre-Kindergarten programs is shameful. The data is very clear. If you want to break the cycle. You must break it very early. Everyone in the Memphis metro area will benefit if we give these children the opportunity to excel and Pre-K is one of the best proven ways to do so.