When do children learn the fastest? Scientific studies are unanimous that it’s from birth to age five.
So when do we start sending them to school?
In most cases, not till Kindergarten, which usually begins at age five. In other words, there’s a vast disconnect between what we know and what we do. Which brings us to the “Pre-K” movement, which recognizes that what happens from birth is hugely important, and that kids ought to be going to school earlier.
Now let’s look at the record. The Center for Michigan, the non-partisan, non-profit “think and do tank” I founded, had an education action group meeting this March. An issues guide prepared for that meeting revealed that as of two years ago, 16 percent of Michigan four-year-olds were in federally funded Head Start preschools. State-funded pre-K programs served another 18 percent.
But that leaves out nearly two-thirds of the rest. How do we do in comparison with other states? Not as well as we should. Currently, Michigan ranks 19th as a proportion of population served, while we rank 16th in support per child enrolled — below where we should be.
Yet instead of beefing up a program vital for our futures, the Michigan legislature considered eliminating all state-funded pre-K last year! They finally allocated $100 million per year.
That’s not enough. Around 35,000 four-year-olds are eligible but not currently enrolled in either Head Start or the Great Start Readiness Program. If all legally eligible children law were to enroll in publicly funded pre-K programs, it would cost $236 million per year, according to the National Institute for Early Education Research.
All told, spending for Michigan schools from state and federal sources together is about $11 billion annually.
Virtually all research shows that the return on investment in reduced prison and social services cost is far above – as much as eight times – the costs of those programs.
This is probably why more than half of the 300 people who attended the Center for Michigan’s action group meeting favored investing any extra money available in pre-K programs.
These facts helped lead to the formation of a new childrens leadership council, a group of 15 influential citizens formed to argue for Pre-K in Michigan, even during times of budget crisis. (Full disclosure: I’m a member, and The Center for Michigan is helping administer a foundation grant for the council.)
At the council’s first meeting in Lansing last week, talk centered around the hard fact that the capitol is preoccupied with the budget crisis, and that despite early education’s importance, most lawmakers regard advocates for Pre-K as just another special interest group.
There are 83 programs in state government that, in some way, touch early childhood ad education, according to Judy Samuelson, CEO of the Early Childhood Investment Corporation, a public body charged with arguing in favor of Pre-K education. These organizations – one of which is our state itself – are the funding vehicles for $2.5 billion going to early childhood programs.
This reminded me of the days in the early 1980s when I was picked by then-Governor Jim Blanchard to chair the Michigan Job Training Coordinating Council. Back then, the state was in the middle of a big recession (what else!), and most of the job training folks were whining about not having enough money.
I insisted on doing a census, and guess what. It turned out that there were a total of 72 job training programs in Michigan being administered by nine separate departments of state government. The problem wasn’t financial. It was managerial – all those separate entities, each duplicating scarce expenses.
Consolidating programs into one place would reduce waste and increase accountability. Those are two key policies for the state worst-hit by the recession.
What’s needed, then is a focal point for overseeing and coordinating all the separate funding streams around this field – say, a Governor’s Office for Early Childhood Education.
This is something that might easily be done by executive order. The Early Childhood Investment Corp.‘s Samuelson was asked to discuss this idea with Governor Jennifer Granholm.
Are you listening, governor?
And, while we’re on the topic of disconnect between what we know and what we do, here’s the latest rumor from Lansing: The state faces a general fund deficit of around $1.8 billion.
That’s almost exactly what the state spends to support higher education. Supposedly some “geniuses” in the legislature and the governor’s office are seriously discussing closing the budget gap by eliminating entirely all public support for colleges and universities!
If you want Michigan to have any future, just hope it ain’t true.
***
Editor’s Note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics and a former chairman of the Michigan chapter of the Nature Conservancy. He is also the founder and president of The Center for Michigan, a bipartisan centrist think-and-do tank which is sponsoring Michigan’s Defining Moment, a public engagement outreach campaign for citizens. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of The Center. He welcomes your comments at ppower@thecenterformichigan.net
7 Comments
Until you change cirriculum, it won’t matter.
Do you think they will be able to read at 17 when they can’t at 18 now?
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see giving the gov’t and teachers the opportunity to succeed in educating kids will happen by simply entering children into the system at an earlier age. The system has not worked for our children up to now. So more of it is what is needed? I’m not convinced that the MEA education system is even capable of teaching. Their record to date doesn’t give me cause to jump on this band wagon quite yet. Fix the present system before we put yet another gov’t program in place. Then I will be a proponent of adding more “education”.
I understand that according to reports that children in their formative years, age 0-5 learn faster. And I understand the pre-k thinking that we should invest more, but why shouldn’t parents be responcible for pre-k if they feel that it is in THEIR childrens best interest. Where is their responcibility on this issue? With the poor state of the economy now, why are taxpayers always asked to do more when in reality is should be the parents supporting what they feel is in their childrens best interest??
Parents of children ages 0-3 from all socioeconmic levels and all education levels have availed themselves voluntarily of our home visiting services for their 0-5 year-old children. They want to know what they don’t know, they want to be reinforced for being their child’s first and most important teacher – and they want to assure their child has a fair start in preschool and K-12 systems. Why is it, when we talk about support of early childhood education we go just to addressing 4 year-old preschool and a debate about taking away parent’s rights when the child is younger than 4? Is it so difficult to understnad that the first three years of life are vital to optimal brain development – and parents need and want all the support they can get? Instead, these important and relatively inexpensive services are being cut all around the state of Michigan. Short-sighted, aren’t we?
Kristi has the right idea helping the main teacher the parents to help with there childrens developement would go a long way. It would not only help the child but the parent that lacks the skills would also be learning at the same time. Two birds with one stone concept.
There is no one answer to this problem so lets work on different solutions.
Dale Westrick
Why bother the incompetents in government with responsibilities that belong to the parent. Either return the taxes to the parents and allow them to determine the quality of schooling in the private sector or attach the government’s expropriated school funding to the individual student like it is done in many European countries and let the parents decide where THEIR children should be educated.
Don’t close the government educational system. Repeal all monopolistic government regulation enjoyed by the government school system and FORCE them to compete with private educators. See how long the government schools stay in business then.
My children attended a private school when we lived in Georgia. The teachers were not accredited and guess what, the school guaranteed their reading levels and had a MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. You’ll NEVER see a government school offer a money back guarantee, never. Once they have YOUR expropriated money they will keep it regardless of the competence or incompetence of the system.
Public schools exist because business and industry in the late 1800’s, early 1900’s wanted a workforce that could function on the job—read instructions, follow directions, solve mathematical problems, and have an awareness of the scientific method and cause and effect. These are the reasons thut that government supports education0—not to meet the “responsiblities” of individual parents or students, but to meet the needs of society. Now more than ever, we need a well educated workforce that can function in a very complex society. If my neighbor’s child isn’t educated, I suffer when that child fails and ends up in jail or on the street. As taxpayers, we want our dollars to be well spent to meet this need. Therefore, we need to make the wise investment in quality early childhood education, including services to parents who keep their little ones at home. Early education does not have to happen in a school building. When we invest money in protecting and developing the brains of young children, through appropriate services in health, social services, and educational programs specifically designed for very young citizens, we will get that money back a thousandfold, when they grow older and succeed in school, don’t need expensive remedial classes, are physically and emotionally healthy, interact in socially acceptable ways, are workforce ready, and have no desire or need to act out against the rest of us. They will be ready to contribute to our future, instead of being a burden to the criminal justice, welfare, or mental health systems. Spending money on young children SAVES money. We all need to take this long term approach, and not just focus on what saves us the most today. We need to avoid the “penny wise, pound foolish” approach. We need to spend money now, to save much more in the long run.