Education for four-year-olds : state initiatives : technical report #2 - Page 17 |
Previous | 17 of 65 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT # 2 9 why not a Chevrolet- type of program?’ represents a common theme ( Scarr, 1998). There are several possible responses to this objection. Evidence can be offered that there are long- range benefits to a well- organized intervention program that would include less school failure or even less crime in later years, a major savings in long- term costs. The work of Weikert and others, for example, have indicated that the state can receive several dollars back in benefits for every dollar spent now on quality child programs ( Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikert, 1993). The second level of objection is more difficult to deal with because it represents a moral position. The objection is as follows: ‘ The family is the cornerstone of morality and character building in our society. By taking young children out of the family and placing them in some preschool pro-gram, you are further undermining the family unit during a time when children most need the nurturance of a loving mother. No child care worker or teacher can replace that love.’ Further, by allowing the child to be cared for by ‘ government’ you open him/ her to suspect outside influences. ‘ How do you know what the child is being taught during these tender years?’ These objections are made with great intensity and sincerity by some provide a continued predictable opposition to the prekindergarten in education program ( Olsen, 1999). Although the numbers of these objectors are relatively small, their energy and commitment are large, and provide a predict-able barrier in any state. There have been a number of critics who believe that the claims of benefits from prekindergarten programs have been overstated and lack convincing evidence ( Scarr, 1998). While they admit that some exemplary programs with an abundance of re-sources have shown a difference in the children’s development, they point out that other programs with lesser resources have not shown to make such a difference. Olsen ( 1999) has summarized the negative position as follows: “ No empirical evidence supports the claim that universal preschool will reduce the number of children who will perform poorly in school, become teenage parents, commit criminal acts, or depend on welfare. Although some projects have had meaningful short- term effects on disadvantaged children’s cognitive ability, grade retention and special education place-ment, those benefits are short lived.” ( p. 17) While it is true that there have been only modest changes in IQ scores in children in these special preschool programs there is some consis-tency in the finding that there is less later school failure, which is a major goal of such programs ( Ramey & Ramey, 1998). As Susan Gray once pointed out, it is foolish to think of early childhood programs as providing an inoculation against all of the ills of society that the child may meet in later years ( Gray, Ramsey, & Klaus, 1982).
Object Description
Description
Title | Education for four-year-olds : state initiatives : technical report #2 - Page 17 |
Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_borndigital\images_master\ |
Full Text | NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT # 2 9 why not a Chevrolet- type of program?’ represents a common theme ( Scarr, 1998). There are several possible responses to this objection. Evidence can be offered that there are long- range benefits to a well- organized intervention program that would include less school failure or even less crime in later years, a major savings in long- term costs. The work of Weikert and others, for example, have indicated that the state can receive several dollars back in benefits for every dollar spent now on quality child programs ( Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikert, 1993). The second level of objection is more difficult to deal with because it represents a moral position. The objection is as follows: ‘ The family is the cornerstone of morality and character building in our society. By taking young children out of the family and placing them in some preschool pro-gram, you are further undermining the family unit during a time when children most need the nurturance of a loving mother. No child care worker or teacher can replace that love.’ Further, by allowing the child to be cared for by ‘ government’ you open him/ her to suspect outside influences. ‘ How do you know what the child is being taught during these tender years?’ These objections are made with great intensity and sincerity by some provide a continued predictable opposition to the prekindergarten in education program ( Olsen, 1999). Although the numbers of these objectors are relatively small, their energy and commitment are large, and provide a predict-able barrier in any state. There have been a number of critics who believe that the claims of benefits from prekindergarten programs have been overstated and lack convincing evidence ( Scarr, 1998). While they admit that some exemplary programs with an abundance of re-sources have shown a difference in the children’s development, they point out that other programs with lesser resources have not shown to make such a difference. Olsen ( 1999) has summarized the negative position as follows: “ No empirical evidence supports the claim that universal preschool will reduce the number of children who will perform poorly in school, become teenage parents, commit criminal acts, or depend on welfare. Although some projects have had meaningful short- term effects on disadvantaged children’s cognitive ability, grade retention and special education place-ment, those benefits are short lived.” ( p. 17) While it is true that there have been only modest changes in IQ scores in children in these special preschool programs there is some consis-tency in the finding that there is less later school failure, which is a major goal of such programs ( Ramey & Ramey, 1998). As Susan Gray once pointed out, it is foolish to think of early childhood programs as providing an inoculation against all of the ills of society that the child may meet in later years ( Gray, Ramsey, & Klaus, 1982). |