Marilyn P. Bernardino Pre-k for All, Are We Ready?

Gone are the days when our 4 year-old kids stay home with their mom or caregiver, watching the likes of Sponge Bob and Dora on TV the whole day. Now, many of these kids spend most of their time outside of their homes in day care centers or preschools, where they can be taken care of. Today, many parents think that 4-year-olds ought to enroll in a

prekindergarten program that helps to prepare them for school. These parents think of preschool as a public good, not a luxury or a necessary evil(Gormley, 2005, p. 246). Unfortunately, many American preschoolers do not have access to high-quality early learning opportunities. Researches suggest that there are significant disparities in childrens early learning experiences, thus, resulting in large achievement gaps even before children enter school. Without a high quality preschool program, we can never close these achievement gaps. Political leaders and early childhood advocates are now pushing for the expansion of early childhood education in the United States. This movement stems from several studies indicating that early childhood experiences can greatly impact later life outcomes. Without a strong foundation of early learning, many children start kindergarten with a deficit, and many of them are unable to catch up (Doggett & Wat, 2010). Several studies have shown the impact of high quality preschool in young childrens acquisition of cognitive and social skills necessary to succeed in school. In most states, options are available for enrollment in Pre-K for young children age 3 and 4 years old. Parents may enroll their child in a federally funded Head Start program, statefunded preschool, government-funded special education programs, and private child care providers. If the family income is at the poverty level, they may also receive government

subsidies that can help pay for private preschool. Most of the state-funded preschool programs cater only to children of low income families, while children from the middle and upper-class families are left with the option of sending their kids to private preschool which, if of high quality, can be expensive. A new trend in the early childhood education emerged when the first state-funded pre-k program for all children, irrespective of income was established in Georgia, in 1995 (Gormley, 2005). The state of New York established their universal prekindergarten program in 1997 and Oklahoma in 1998. To date, Tennessee, North Carolina, New Jersey, Washington, and Kentucky, have public pre-k programs serving a small share of preschool-aged students. Other states, including Wisconsin, Texas, and Florida, have programs that score high on access but low on quality (Cascio & Schanzenbach, 2013). In practice, a universal program means that the program is universally available (or nearly so) but that parents are free to enroll their children or not as they see fit (Gormley. Gayer, Phillips, & Dawson, 2005, p. 3). Such programs are different from regular preschool or day care programs in many ways. Universal Pre-K programs impose higher teacher standards, stronger curricula guidelines and lower childto-staff ratios than typically set by state governments for other licensed child care centers (Fitzpatrick, 2008). Several studies have documented the benefits of high quality pre-k programs for lowincome families. But all children, regardless of economic status, can also benefit from this program if it is available to them. Empirical researches have shown that pre-k positively affects a range of social, academic and economic indicators of the children who participates in these programs (Brown & Glasko, 2010). In a study conducted by Gormley, et al. (2005), the

universal pre-k program in Tulsa, Oklahoma was found to have statistically significant effects on childrens performance on cognitive tests of pre-reading and reading skills, pre-writing and

spelling skills, and math reasoning and problem-solving abilities. The Oklahoma pre-k program was also found to benefit children from all racial/ethnic groups that comprise substantial portions of the Tulsa population: Hispanics, blacks, Native Americans, and whites. The study also yielded benefits of the program for children from diverse income brackets, including children eligible for a full price lunch, a reduced price lunch, and no lunch subsidy at all. Another study conducted by Fitzpatrick (2008) analyzed the impact of Georgias universal preschool program on the fourth grade test results in Math and Reading as measured in the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP). Positive effects were found on fourth-grade NAEP test scores and the probability of being on grade level. The impacts are consistently positive among disadvantaged, non-urban students, and more mixed among other demographic groups (Fitzpatrick, 2008). Many concerns have been raised by some ECE advocates about the interest in expanding Pre-k and the ability of these programs to prepare young children to succeed in elementary schools (Brown & Glasko, 2008). Finn (2010) asserted that universal pre-k is a wrong policy to impose on preschool. He reasoned that majority of the 3 and 4 years old are already enrolled in some form of preschool and their families are already receiving benefits and subsidies that meet different family needs. Currently, Head Start programs are provided for these low income families, but what about the children of the middle class, who are considered too affluent to qualify even for childcare subsidies? Some of these families cannot afford to pay, thus denying these children of access to high quality preschool program. According to Doggett and Wat (2010), while the academic gap is wide between poor and upper-income children, middle income children also lag behind when compared to their well-to-do peers. The fact is that the cut-off point at which most states consider a child middle class - or too affluent for publicly funded high quality pre-kindergarten - has no meaningful relationship with childrens potential to benefit

educationally and developmentally from high-quality early learning programs (Doggett & Watt, 2010, p. 9). Finn (2010) also pointed out that preschools are not comfortable with setting academic expectations or mandating sophisticated curriculum for their programs and aligning them with the states K-12 standards. In his opinion, preschools are not ready for results-based accountability because they have not taught the necessary competencies for a child to succeed in life. High quality preschool ought to understand what the child needs to be able to succeed in elementary school. Highly qualified preschool teachers, not only teach academic knowledge and skills, but nurture the child, as well. Universal Pre-k in Georgia, for example, imposed higher teacher standards, stronger curricula guidelines and lower child-to-staff ratio (Fitzpatrick, 2008). The administration of President Obama has proposed the Preschool For All initiative that aims to expand access to high-quality preschool to every child in America. These preschools would be free for children from low- and moderate-income families and accessible to children from higher income families at some cost. Local school districts and other providers would be responsible for implementation, and will be required to adopt certain quality benchmarks, including early learning standards, teacher qualifications, and a plan for assessment (Cascio & Schanzenbach, 2013). Expanding access to high quality pre-kindergarten program reflects the principle already embedded in our public school equality. The United States has rejected separate systems for students with different background and if that tenet holds true for kindergarten, it should be true for pre-k (Doggett & Watt, 2010, p. 9). All children regardless of economic situation, deserve the opportunities for a well-planned, purposeful and playful learning experiences, which only a high-quality universal pre-kindergarten program can offer.

References
Brown, C., & Gasko, J. (2012). Why should pre-k be more like elementary school? A case study of pre-k reform. Journal Of Research In Childhood Education, 26(3), 264-290.

Cascio, E. & Schanzenbach, D.W. (2013). The impacts of expanding access to high-quality preschool education. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19735.

Doggett, L., & Wat, A. (2010). Why prek for all?. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 8-11.

Finn, C. (2010). Targeted, not universal prek. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 12-16.

Fitzpatrick, M.D. (2008). Starting school at four: the effect of universal pre-kindergarten on childrens academic achievement The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy. 8(46).

Retrieved from http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol8/iss1/art46

Gormley, Jr. W.T. (2005). The universal pre-k bandwagon. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (3), 246-249.

Gormley Jr., W.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. (2005) . The effects of universal pre-k

on cognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 872-884.