- Oregon mayor reacts to Exelon talk of closing nuclear plant
- GiGi’s benefit for Down syndrome, March 21
- What’s the future hold for Rose?
- ‘Hogs keep pace in tight Midwest
- Qatar continues to confound
- Meet John Doe: Keep public notices in print
- Commentary: Rauner’s minimum wage plan just more of the same from GOP
- Tube Talk: A bite out of the competition
- Rockford Rocked: A chat with local musician Tony Walker
- Drafts & Fare: Women brewers find more recognition in market
Reduced funding for pre-K programs not all that bad
The Rock River Times ran an article last week [online: “Report: Illinois ranks high for early childhood education access for 3-year-olds,” April 10] quoting preschool advocates who claim that reduced funding for state pre-K programs is a dire situation. That claim is actually not supported by the research about early childhood education, which universally concludes that small children grow best emotionally and mentally when in a stable home with a loving parent caregiver rather than an outside institution. Pre-K programs nearly never boost such children academically and socially because they already have all the right ingredients for a good future.
Pre-K programs are actually best targeted at children who do not have a stable home or literate parents, and function as a substitute for deficient parenting or home life. These are the children that the research shows pre-K programs help. But they are a minority.
This is why advocates for universal preschool are wrong, and their advocacy is not grounded in the research, which instead demonstrates that any subsidized preschool should be targeted at these specific kids with poor homes. In a state with fiscal problems that will soon be as bad as California’s, it is important that taxpayers and parents understand that state-funded universal preschool is actually unnecessary for children’s well-being.
Education research fellow, Heartland Institute
From the May 2-8, 2012, issue