Obama's Pre-K Boot Camp For All

The evidence strongly supports the notion that quality preschool programs benefit all children, especially those from low-income families (click here to see some of that evidence). Thus, it is refreshing that President Obama has made this one of his goals and that he is getting some support from both parties. However, Universal Preschool for All is not a panacea that will erase the achievement gap or solve the nation’s economic woes.

Larry Cuban highlights some of these problems in his recent piece in the Washington Post. Let’s start with Cuban’s first point, “that one issue brings together both CEOs and educational progressives, political conservatives and liberals: investing in tax-supported preschool for three and four year-olds.”

The fact that conservatives are agreeing with liberals on anything should make one suspicious. While they may be asking for the same thing on the surface, their objectives and motivations are likely very different. Cuban alludes to this by suggesting that not all preschools are created alike. Should preschool be “boot camp for kindergarten,” he asks, “or a place where very young children, as Alison Gopnik put it, ’be allowed to explore, inquire, play, and discover?’” 

The answer to this question depends on the social class of the children, and the parents who are asking it. The wealthy can send their kids to elite private preschools that focus on play, art, music and movement as a way to develop their children’s social and cognitive skills. Most of the rest of America cannot afford this. Even President Obama said in his State of the Union speech that “most middle-class parents can’t afford a few hundred bucks a week for a private preschool” and the poor and working class are far worse off. Consequently, less than 30% of U.S. four year-olds currently attend a “high-quality” preschool (compared with over 90% in Mexico, France, Spain, and Netherlands).

This is a new education market, yet one that carries with it many of the same benefits of the K-12 market: captive, obligatory consumers; secure annual revenues from the state; subsidies; and the marketing magic of being able to say your business nurtures and protects America’s Innocent Children.

The question is, will the corporate education vultures looking for a piece of the supposed 70% increase in preschool consumers, provide a boot camp for other people’s children, or a “whole child,” Froebelian-Pestalozzian style preschool that nutures children’s creativity, curiosity and enthusiasm through play and social interactions, like the schools where their children attend?

The most likely answer is boot camp. These are not their own children, after all, so nurturing, coddling, fun and play are not their concern. Rather, these are the children of their employees, future employees themselves. They need discipline. They need to be prepared for the 21^st century workforce. This has led to a demand for “cognitively-driven” preschools with direct instruction in skills that give children a leg up in the competition for college and jobs. Driven by the national obsession with standards, testing and accountability, this has led to many private and public preschools now requiring cognitive skills tests.

It is important to note that Froebelian, play-based pre-kindergarten programs do not completely ignore the development of academic skills. They simply approach it differently. Rather than forcing children to sit still for extended periods of time and then repeat after the teacher ad nauseum, they let the children play and explore with provocative and intriguing toys, games, tools and nature, introducing the vocabulary, pre-reading skills, math and science as they go. The children take more initiative and responsibility for their activities and interactions, thus developing their social skills, as well as their reasoning skills, curiosity and self-efficacy.

It is true that lower income children typically enter kindergarten with vocabularies that are substantially lower than those of their more affluent peers. This is because affluent parents on average spend far more time reading to their children than do poor and working class parents. They also tend to use larger vocabularies with their children and introduce them to more complex words and ideas. Consequently, poor children start kindergarten with significantly smaller vocabularies and fewer literacy skills (see Burkam and Lee). This makes high quality prekindergarten programs all the more important for them.

It is not true, however, that low income children must be subjected to the same sort of rote memorization, accountability, testing, homework, worksheets and other nonsense they will likely get in the higher grades. They can still rapidly increase their vocabularies and pre-reading skills in a freer, Froebelian-style pre-K environment.

Pre-K Does Not Erase the Effects of Poverty

Lack of preschool worsens an achievement gap that is already in place well before children are even old enough for preschool (see Hart and Risely). Preschool has been shown to help mitigate this for some lower income children and provide skills that help many become school ready, but it does nothing to improve the conditions in their homes and communities that cause the achievement gap to grow over time, like hunger, illness and absenteeism, or lack of access to intellectually enriching summer activities. Thus, while preschool for all is a potentially positive education reform, it still suffers the same fundamental problem that all other education reforms suffer: It does nothing to reduce poverty and the wealth gap. And as long as these problems persist, there will continue to be an achievement gap.

Obama’s Pre-K for All Plan Leaves Out the Middle Class

Obama’s plan is to provide quality pre-K for all the lower income families who currently cannot afford it. But what about all the middle class families who cannot afford it, or those who are borrowing on their retirement plans to pay for it? Will they get any relief?

Probably not. Without relief, they will continue to borrow and save and spend more than they want to because they know the educational value of preschool (and they need day care for their children so they can go to work). Thus, the risk of middle class children missing out on preschool is less of a problem.

The government’s interest in providing free public education is to aid the employing class in providing their future employees with the basic skills necessary for work at the lowest cost possible. A small increase in expenditures to help the lowest achieving kids increase the chances that they’ll graduate might be considered a reasonable investment, but providing superfluous relief to the already self-sufficient middle class would be wasteful. More importantly, this subsidy will allow private companies to make large profits providing pre-K educational services to the poor, much like many urban charter schools are already doing at the K-12 grade levels.

The New Network for Public Education

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

 A new anti-reform education reform movement is taking shape: The Network for Public Education. 

Led by Diane Ravitch, Anthony Cody, Leonie Haimson and other lefty ed reformers, the NPE is calling for an end to privatization schemes; increased funding; assessments that are used to inform instruction, not to penalize schools, students and teachers, among other reforms; community control; teacher autonomy; and a host of other reforms..

As far as reformist movements go, the NPE’s initial platform seems like a reasonable start. However, when examined more closely, it’s hard to tell what the NPE is actually demanding or how it intends to achieve its goals. For example, what do they mean by “democratic control?” One parent, one vote? One teacher, one vote? School Site Councils, (which are essentially advisory and subservient to school boards)? The abolition of school boards (representative democracy) to be replaced by some sort of direct democracy? Workers councils led by employee delegates who are recallable at any time by their colleagues?

Currently, most public schools already have some sort of democratic control (e.g., school site councils, PTAs and elected school boards), but these are heavily influenced by moneyed interests and politics and provide the actual stakeholders (e.g., parents, teachers, students) only nominal influence over decisions that affect students’ learning conditions and teachers’ working conditions.

Similarly, what do they mean by providing resources “that students need” or “equitable funding?” Bringing the poorest schools on par with the wealthiest schools is a pretty mild demand, considering that even the best-funded schools do not have sufficient resources. Creating equity from peanuts just means that all schools receive a paltry share of the peanuts.

Perhaps it would help to set some benchmark goals, like one nurse for every 250 students; class sizes that never exceed 25:1 in the secondary grades and never exceed 15:1 in the elementary grades; free preschool for all, and generous, ample funding, rather than “equity” from the pittances we currently receive. Likewise, how about mandatory wages and benefits that are not only adequate for supporting school employees in the communities where they work, but that are actually generous and allow a degree of luxury and security?

The NPE argues that there should be more emphasis on early childhood education because the achievement gap begins before kindergarten and early childhood education can help mitigate this. However, preschool and Head Start, alone, cannot erase the pre-K achievement gap, because this gap is a direct product of poverty. Will the NPE also fight for programs and initiatives that close the wealth gap and reduce poverty, since this is the number one cause of low student achievement and will continue to hinder children’s academic success, regardless what happens in the classroom?
 
NPE calls for the evaluation of teachers by professionals, not by unreliable test scores, yet they say nothing about who these professional should be. As long as evaluators continue to be site administrators there will be an inherent bias that can lead to good teachers being disciplined or fired and incompetent or corrupt teachers being promoted. These professionals should be highly trained, objective outsiders (ideally teachers, themselves), who evaluate teachers blindly. Furthermore, the evaluations should be used to support professional growth, not to punish teachers for petty infractions or to fire them for being union organizers, student advocates or higher paid veterans.

Lastly, while NPE opposes profiteering off of public education, they have not yet indicated whether they expect this to wither away through voting and protesting, or if they recognize it as an inevitable product of education’s role in capitalism. All the other problems they criticize stem from this relationship. Even without the transfer of tax dollars from public school budgets to private charter schools, tech companies and test and textbook publishers, there will continue to be an incentive by the state to spend as a little as possible on education and keep its employees under tight control (e.g., accountability schemes, limitations on unions and strikes).

Ultimately, even with a more coherent and specific plan, NPE, like all other liberal/reformist initiatives, will at best only be able to reduce the problems they identify with public education, since all of these problems have capitalism, itself, at their root. For example, when teaching is no longer tied to wages, the problem of administrators firing teachers (or giving them bad evaluations) for being union organizers, student advocates or higher paid veterans would cease to exist. There would no longer be a need for high stakes tests, since there would no longer be a motivation for sorting students by ability in order to track them into wage work versus management. Schools could be funded rationally, based on their actual needs, rather than being held hostage to a system designed to make the wealthy even wealthier by reducing social spending to the bare bones. Perhaps most importantly, in addition to practical skills (e.g., critical thinking, reading, writing, math) teachers could start teach what students themselves want to learn, fostering creativity, curiosity and an intrinsic love of learning.

Testing Causes Failure

The high stakes tests required by No Child Left Behind are designed to increase the number of failing schools (see here and here), thus forcing them to adopt free market reforms like reconstitution, charter school conversion, or hiring private tutors and curriculum consultants. However, as Valerie Strauss points out in a recent piece in her Answer Sheet blog, the increasing emphasis on high stakes tests and the pressure to improve scores may also be increasing student anxiety and their ability to perform well on the exams.

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

 Test anxiety is considered a psychological condition that goes well beyond the typical nervousness that most people experience before a test. Sufferers experience anxiety so intense that it impairs their ability to recall basic facts, comprehend test questions, and perform to their potential. Thus, the test results that are being used to punish schools and districts and that are driving much of the reform movement are likely skewed, making student achievement and school quality appear much worse than they are.

Straus points out that it is difficult to know exactly how pervasive the problem is, but the American Test Anxiety Association believes as many as 20% of students suffer from substantial test anxiety, while  an additional 18% may experience some degree of test anxiety. The problem may be becoming more prevalent because of the intense emphasis schools and districts are placing on state and federal exams. Competition for slots in high status universities may also be contributing the problem by increasing the pressure to do well on SATs, Advanced Placement and even course unit exams.

Strauss’ article provides some useful tips from Annie Murphy Paul, some of which I have been using with my students to varying degrees of success. Paul’s first suggestion is to “Unload on paper.” I call it a brain dump. The way it works is that we review together before the test, and then I have students clear everything from their desks, give them scratch paper and have them dump as much onto their scratch paper as they can remember from review, lectures, and homework before beginning the test. I even refrain from passing out the tests for five minutes to give them time and encouragement to do this rather than succumbing to the temptation to rush into the test to “get it over with.”

The rationale for this strategy is that when students feel nervous, their thinking becomes muddled and their ability to recall is hindered. Anxieties can use up some of the working memory. By doing a “brain dump” prior to even seeing the test, the stakes are lowered and the memories are fresher. It is kind of like being given permission to use a cheat sheet or having open notes, either of which can serve as a “crutch” that relaxes students by giving them the sense they have extra support, thus relieving some of the anxiety.

Paul also points to some research that showed positive effects from asking students to write about their anxieties prior to a test. While seemingly counterintuitive (i.e., this might heighten the cycle of negative thinking), studies show that it actually improved test scores. One explanation is that it helps to affirm and legitimize students’ feelings, which is an important step toward overcoming negative thinking.

She also suggests that test anxiety may be especially bad among girls and minority students because of “stereotype threat,” the fear that poor test performance will confirm negative stereotypes about their gender or race. Writing about such feelings prior to taking the test may help affirm this kind of thinking, too, and Paul points to a study that supports this hypothesis.

Paul’s final suggestion is to lead students in relaxation exercises prior to exams, like a guided meditation that focuses on breathing and body awareness. This is another technique that I have been using for years, with varying degrees of success. Of course it is important to have a plan for how to deal with the occasional goof-offs who don’t take it seriously and disrupt the process for the others, but, for the most part my students do take it seriously.

I regularly debrief with my students after exams and find that the majority like the relaxation exercises and believe they help. However, there are some who continue to do poorly on exams, despite the relaxation exercises and brain dumps. I suspect that some of this stems from intense pressure by parents to perform well or from growing up around anxious parents. Therefore, like many aspects of school success, test anxiety may be influenced more by outside of school factors than by anything under the control of teachers.

So, aside from the three strategies proposed by Paul, if we really care about students’ health and emotional wellbeing (not to mention their academic success), we need to address these outside of school influences. One of the most expedient solutions is to end the obsession with accountability and testing. Since NCLB has done nothing to improve schools, and has almost certainly worsened them by taking so much class time away from actual learning and by replacing thinking and creativity with rote memorization and bubble-in testing, let’s simply do away with it. By abolishing all high stakes exams we will lose nothing in terms of school quality, but we will reduce some of the stressors contributing to student anxiety (not to mention teacher anxiety) and allow schools to restore much of the science, arts and physical education that were cut to make room for more test preparation.

Another solution is to change the way students apply for and are accepted to colleges. Ideally, every student who wants to go to college should be able to go, even if this means providing the remedial courses necessary for potential students who are not yet academically ready and vastly increasing taxes (on the wealthy) to pay for all the extra professors and classrooms. Doing this would significantly reduce the anxiety that many students feel as a result of the competition for scarce university slots. It would also increase the number of people with college degrees and their economic opportunities.

Of course the biggest influence on student anxiety may be their anxious parents. Children pick up a lot from their families, particularly behaviors, social attitudes and coping mechanisms (or lack thereof). Yet a lot adult anxieties stem from their own material insecurity (e.g., how are we going to pay the mortgage with this pay cut?) or from the burden of having too many personal, social and work-related responsibilities (e.g., how am I going to get the kids to school on time and not be late for work myself?) An increase in such anxieties is an expected consequence of the rapidly increasing worker productivity that has occurred over the last three decades, which has made the bosses richer by squeezing more work and greater profits out of their employees per hour worked, causing both a decline in living standards and a rise in work-related demands and stress.  

This source of anxiety seems more intractable since a lasting solution requires the abolition of wage labor and capitalism. However, short of this, gains could be made through collective actions by workers to raise wages and improve working conditions. Rather than simply giving the bosses the profits from our increased productivity, we could demand shorter workdays or work weeks at the same or higher pay. The Wobblies (IWW) use to call for a four hour work day and a four day work week. This might seem like a fantasy in today’s economic and political climate, but it is worth working toward as it would reduce (or end) unemployment, provide us with more time to spend with friends, family and to pursue our personal interests, while reducing anxiety and stress, thus improving overall health and wellbeing,.

Story Time’s Over Kindergartners—Time To Write Expository Essays!

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

The testing mania that has dominated education reform for the past decade has only indirectly affected kindergartners (the federal and state tests do not start until second grade). However, because the stakes for schools are so high (low test scores can mean reconstitution, mass firings of teachers, forced take over by a charter school), curriculum development and implementation at all grade levels are now influenced by the tests. At some schools, this means a reduction or elimination of arts, music, physical education and even science to make room for math and English support or for test preparation. It may also include practice bubble-in tests at the kindergarten and first grade levels.

At virtually all levels of K-12 education it has reduced the potential for learning activities that are spontaneous, fun, creative and rooted in students’ interests and experiences. While this may prepare children for a future life at a desk in a cubicle (perhaps one reason why the Gates Foundation has spent millions of dollars to promote the Common Core Standards (CCS), it also contributes to their alienation from and disdain for school and learning, as well as the increased stress and anxiety many teachers are noticing in their students.

Presently, despite the testing mania, kindergarten still retains some of the games, song, dance and other playful, lighthearted activities we remember from our own kindergarten experiences. This may soon change with the adoption of Common Core (CCS), which will supposedly put all children on the same learning track as others at their grade level, including the lower elementary grades.

On the surface this might seem like a common sense way to raise the bar and improve learning outcomes (based on the bogus assumption that teachers across the country do whatever they damned well please in the classroom and that there is little or no standardization across grade level). However, as Susan Ohanian shows in her recent critique of the video “From the Page to the Classroom: Implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English Language Arts and Literacy,” the CCS are incredibly rigid and stultifying and could have a detrimental effect on teaching and children’s attitudes toward school and learning. For example, even at the K-5 grades, the CCS require a 50-50 mix of fiction and nonfiction reading, with writing grounded in the texts, with no narrative writing or personal opinions permitted.

Here are just a few of Ohanian’s comments (you can read her full article at the Daily Censored):

The New York Post ran a piece  Playtime’s Over, Kindergartners: Standards stressing kids out, explaining that the city Department of Education wants 4- and 5-year-olds to forget the building blocks and crayons and get busy writing “informative/explanatory reports.”  This includes writing a topic sentence.

When my favorite group of second graders were studying a caterpillar’s transformation, some of the kids wrote me exuberant notes along with drawings about what they were learning. I didn’t check these notes for text complexity or topic sentences. Yes, some kindergartners are ready to read. But  many children are harmed when, in the name of rigor and complexity, what was once second grade is now kindergarten.  We don’t expect all babies to walk or talk at the same age. Why do we think five- and six-year-olds should be standardized in their learning—and shoved as a pack into more rigor? (Look up the definition and ask yourself if that’s what you want for a child you love.)

Professor of Curriculum and Teaching at Hunter College and author of numerous books on children’s literacy development, Sandra Wilde worries about the pressures on kindergartners. She suggests, “Read the book, watch the butterflies develop, act it out, but skip the close reading of long sentences. Fingerpaint butterfly pictures instead. What’s the hurry?”