A Question for the Ages

Posted on September 8, 2008 by Aunt B.

Is it just me or is there something darkly funny about watching a “pro-life” congress critter sitting around mulling over how to do away with pre-K?

Filed under: Politics and Other Nonsense

« Kevin Census Well, It’s not Like Fear Itself is All that Small a Thing »

9 Responses

  1. The College Professor, on September 8th, 2008 at 8:33 am Said:

    Ok, after reading your Campfield posts for years I finally bit and read his on pre-K. Now I don’t know why you bother targeting him. He’s an idiot. He’s ignorant. He can’t write a grammatical sentence. He says he’s just “a regular guy,” which may be true, but a regular guy isn’t what’s needed in government. What’s needed in government are educated people willing to believe generously in the folks for whom they are working. (And yes, I’m fully aware of how that applies to the VP pick for the Republican party as well.)
    He clearly knows nothing about child development or kindergarten, or what skills a child needs to succeed in kindergarten. He clearly knows nothing about the necessity of socializing children. He clearly knows nothing about whose children attend pre-K programs–it’s the kids of those who have a parent at home who can drive them and pick them up from their twice a week two hour a day enrichment program.
    Gnash-ville!

  2. dolphin, on September 8th, 2008 at 8:37 am Said:

    I’d think Campfield is a prime example of the need for Pre-K…

  3. Aunt B., on September 8th, 2008 at 8:55 am Said:

    College Professor, I go back and forth. Writing about him clearly does little good, as his constituents still re-elect him, on the one hand. On the other hand, he does have influence because he’s colorful and ever-ready with a quote and I just want there to be a dissenting voice to his nonsense out there in the world.

    Plus, he’s a living example of the Right’s “We love babies until they’re born” attitude, for sure.

  4. Church Secretary, on September 8th, 2008 at 10:32 am Said:

    People Who Know Things are elitist, coastal snobs who think they are better than real, conservative, homespun Heartland folks.

  5. polerin, on September 8th, 2008 at 11:29 am Said:

    Church Secretary: from small towns. Can’t forget small towns.

    Aunt B, that’s my logic for tilting at windmill of trans-exclusionary radfem’s. I hate having a harmful message around without any opposition.

  6. W, on September 8th, 2008 at 11:30 am Said:

    I have my own ideas, but I’m curious how do you counter the findings of the study he keeps mentioning?

  7. Aunt B., on September 8th, 2008 at 12:05 pm Said:

    W., I’d have to read the study for myself to say for sure, but I’ve been operating under the assumption that it doesn’t say what Campfield has been told it says (because, let’s be clear, he’s probably not read it either). I mean, I’ve never heard of any other study that says that pre-K isn’t helpful to kids, making sure that they come into kindergarten with the skills they need to flourish.

    And that’s what I suspect is going on in this study, if I’m understanding what he’s saying–kids who go to pre-K do a little better in kindergarten than kids who don’t go, but over time, by like third grade, there isn’t any discernible difference.

    But, I think what Campfield refuses to see is that there are two groups of kids who don’t go to pre-K–the kids whose parents feel certain of their abilities to prepare them for kindergarten and parents who don’t have the ability (for whatever reason) to prepare them for kindergarten.

    I suspect that what we are seeing is that pre-K helps kids whose parents otherwise wouldn’t be able to prepare them for kindergarten prepare for kindergarten. It is a testament to the success of these programs that these kids are indistinguishable from kids whose parents do have the skills to help them prepare. That’s what success looks like.

    So, of course, we must destroy it.

    Polerin, don’t even get me started on the trans-exclusionary radfems. I could go on all day. I will just say this–I find it baffling that anyone who would take a person born with ambiguous genitalia at his or her word for what gender he or she was would reject taking trans-folks at their word. Especially–and maybe this is why it bothers me the most–because it’s not their business. If you believe in bodily autonomy, you believe in bodily autonomy. Period. And if you don’t, you need to rethink why you’re calling yourself a radical feminist, because there’s nothing very radical about telling other women what they can and can’t do with their bodies. That’s not very radical at all.

  8. bridgett, on September 8th, 2008 at 12:17 pm Said:

    Here’s how I would go about countering:

    1) The report is an interim study, meaning that the program has not gone on long enough to really test its effectiveness. The report measures child performance for the group that went through the pilot program, not the pre-K program as it stands now. Let’s not draw premature conclusions about efficacy.

    2) Moreover, data collection was on apples and oranges, as the pilot program and the implemented curriculum (which adheres to standards-based design) were substantially different. There’s no data yet on how the full program works, since the students from the first full year of the implemented pre-K are just entering second grade. If you want assessment-driven funding, you actually have to wait until sufficient time has passed to make that assessment meaningful.

    3) Child development experts agree that 0-6 is the critical time to prepare children for learning and that early success is fundamental to shaping long-term attitudes towards education, improving educational outcomes, and creating substantial social benefits in the form of improved socialization. The report concludes that the program is accomplishing these goals. Low-income students, who had lagged substantially prior to implementation of the program, are now thriving on par with their peers. The pre-K program is a great success at what it was designed to do. Where’s the bad news in that?

    Campfield’s drawing incorrect conclusions from the test results, I’d argue. To my reading, it looks like the pre-K program works great and that students transition from this program well; the place where students again begin to lag is between second and third grade, which means to my educator’s eye that there are deficiencies in the primary curriculum delivery — not the pre-K. That would suggest that building on the success of the pre-K program (which is launching the children well) would be a lot smarter than eliminating it. Otherwise, you go back to the separate but equal drawing board.

  9. W, on September 8th, 2008 at 2:30 pm Said:

    My primary reasoning was 1) If it doesn’t help after 3rd grade, so what. Helping students K-2 is a laudable goal in itself. And 2) The fact that you can’t tell the difference in who has and has not had pre-K by the third grade is sort of the point and means it’s working as it should.

    Thanks for the food for thought Bridgett.

Leave a Reply