Education for four-year-olds : state initiatives : technical report #2

              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).