
President Obama promises to strengthen early childhood education, but will he follow through with funding? (Children's Bureau Centennial / Flickr / Creative Commons)
Originally posted at In These Times
Of all the mildly liberal, media-genic proposals that peppered President Barack Obama’s state of the Union Address, one seemed especially designed to withstand curmudgeonly criticism from the Right: universal preschool. The image of millions of young tots learning their ABCs and fingerpainting is hard to demonize as evil Big Government.
Nonetheless, Obama’s sweeping plan for the nationwide expansion of early childhood learning programs may not be as straightforward as it seems, especially for the workers who will be expected to carry out the program. The White House’s broad talking points leave open the question of whether the dramatic expansion of preschool programs will be coupled with adequate federal funding.
Plenty of empirical research shows that strong early childhood education can boost future educational development, particularly among kids facing socioeconomic barriers like poverty. But getting early education right means cultivating skilled and motivated teachers. Early childhood programs have long lacked the sustained funding to ensure that educators are equipped with pedagogical training and resources to help “level the playing field” for poor kids. Exacerbating the problem, severe state budget cuts have led to deep funding deficits nationwide.
Generally, the White House’s plan—which aims to achieve “common and consistent standards for quality across all programs”—does appear to promote fairer compensation and support for practitioners, including pay that is comparable to regular K-12 teachers.
But ensuring every kid in the country has a shot at a a high quality preschool program means starting earlier, with teacher training, in order to close massive gaps in the early learning workforce, which advocates say lacks the resources to maintain a well-trained, decently paid corps of educators. And that’s at current enrollment levels; unmet needs will likely soar under a universal preschool system, since currently, many eligible children are unserved because their families lack access to under-resourced public programs like Head Start. The White House’s overhaul proposal so far says little about whether Washington will reverse decades of underfunding.
“If we want highly qualified staff that really understands child development and can really deliver high quality preschool, then the implementation of the proposal is definitely going to have to include some support for that workforce to be able to get those credentials and better compensation,” says Christine Johnson-Staub, an analyst with the social policy think tank CLASP.
How to nurture great early-childhood educators
From a labor perspective, the current system fails to provide real job sustainability. Early childhood educators are among the worst-paid education professionals. Unionization rates are typically low, and turnover is extremely high—especially when educators might earn far more money teaching kindergarten instead of pre-kindergarten next door. Many preschool educators are denied basic benefits that K-12 school teachers typically enjoy, such as class planning time and decent health benefits.
Advocates say that programs for early childhood development are often viewed simplistically as caregiving work, rather than as a critical part of a child’s education. That contributes to the low salaries and leads to a patchwork credentialing system and widely varying budgets. According to a 2009 analysis of the early childcare and education (ECE) workforce by the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment at University of California, Berkeley:
U.S. society has not fully embraced ECE as a public good. As a result, more than 20 federal ECE funding and regulatory streams exist, and all 50 states have their own array of differently funded and governed programs.
Currently, the report notes, “Teacher qualification standards vary widely, based on program types and funding requirements—from little or no pre-service preparation, to a BA or higher—as do the actual qualifications of the teaching corps.”
Marcy Whitebook, executive director of the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, tells Working In These Times that institutional resource gaps weigh heavily on overworked and underpaid staff. Some local early childhood programs, she says, “are so bad that they kind of prevent people from applying what they know and continuing to develop on the job as teachers.”
Since so many staffers are low-income women, often from immigrant backgrounds or communities of color, investing in extra schooling can be a struggle, notes Whitebook, a former preschool teacher. While officials talk about ramping up the skills and quality of the workforce, she adds a cautious note from the viewpoint of overstressed working-class staff: ”If people are going to invest in raising their qualifications, they want to know that there’s going to be a pay increase in the end.”
Filling the gaps
Johnson-Staub says that the new federal initiative should build on state-led efforts to expand professional development and innovative programming in early childhood programs. In recent years, some state-level projects have made significant progress in strengthening preschool systems, but advocates are waiting to see a comprehensive national approach toward building the early learning infrastructure to accommodate the promised expansion.
There are also deeper questions about what a centralized early childhood education system means for the practice and culture of schooling. In recent years, the White House and state officials have imposed hardline reforms on K-12 schools, including standardized tests, corporate-style pedagogical models and drastic school restructuring. These initiatives have alienated teachers and devastated poor school districts. A federalized approach to early childhood education could usher in similar tensions over how programs deal equitably with the complex needs of the communities they serve.
As a policy concept, universal preschool is a beautiful idea, but on the ground, nice ideas require concrete resources for the people putting those ideas into practice. It’s unclear whether the White House will pair its push for universal preschool with material support for educators. Other federal education reform initiatives have failed thus far to close glaring inequalities and funding gaps in K-12 systems.
Investments in early education are promoted as yielding high “returns” later in life, but these returns are only reaped through high-quality teaching. Preschool educators deserve a return on the investment of their labor, too—that means giving them the federal support they need to do their job well, and the respect they deserve as a kid’s first, and perhaps most important, teacher.



21 Comments

Congress is the problem for getting funding.
Or have you forgotten how that works?
We need to wipe out the Bircher “tea party” sell-outs in the house in 2014. It’s that simple.
Then take 60 seats in the Senate in 2016.
Make it happen.
Yeah riiight! the Dems can have 70 seats in the Senate
and it still won’t be enough.
The notion that it’s just the GOP preventing us from
embarking on a progressive agenda is foolhardy.
If the DNC is such a progressive entity,why is there
a progressive caucus within the party for chrissakes!
There is absolutely nothing progressive electing multi-millionaires
to congressional seats.Nothing,nada,zip,zilch as their interest is not the same as we ordinary people.
As far as Obama is concern,anything he says take with a pound of salt.His words ain’t worth much.
Given Obama’s record on education so far, it is foolish to believe he is using this proposal as anything but a distraction. See Education – http://newprogs.org/blog/2012/01/14/education-under-democraticrepublican-uni-party
Will this be a public program, in public schools, staffed from teachers, to lunch room, to custodians, by public employees in public unions with decent salaries and benefits, curriculum developed by experienced and dedicated educators?
Or will this be a “public-private partnership – taxpayer dollars shifted to private for-profit corporations for the sake of making a profit and paying for CEO salaries, marketing, and lobbying?
The answer will probably tell us whether it’s a serious proposal, whether it can get the votes, and whether it will be of benefit to the children.
Whatever he says, turn it 180 degrees. I know politicians are professional liars but I’ve never seen anything like him.
Head Start has been a failure and waste of money. You can get the entire HHS evaluation here:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/executive_summary_final.pdf
Money quote:
“In sum, this report finds that providing access to Head Start has benefits for both 3-yearolds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the
social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole….”
Obama’s Universal Preschool
PlanProposal: As Good as It Sounds?I know this is the US, and most here not precise in their use of
EnglishThe United States English Dialect. Even in the dialect, there is a world of difference between a proposal in a speech and a plan for implementation, a plan which would be detailed and include funding.This is not the grammar police. This is the completely asinine misuse of the work “plan”, in a headline whose use is to excite.
What plan? Let’s read and discuss the details, if there are any to be had.
How come your money quote ‘proving’ that Head Start’s a failure actually states flat-out that it benefits three- and four-year-olds?
How come you ignored the next sentence of the money quote?
Perhaps waiting until age four is the problem. If we provided Head Start at age two, or, here’s a radical thought, provided excellent childcare from birth for all, we would see even better results.
Your statement is misleading since the study conclusion does not call the program a failure OR a waste of money. Instead it suggests that the gains made during the program tend to be less noticable by a child in first grade. This makes sense since essentially kindergarten is going to teach many of the same skills that these kids learn in Head Start so it makes sense that the control group could “catch up” by first grade.
It also says they want to examine it further. Quite frankly, I think the program makes the argument for good after school programs in these areas. Head Start is meant to be a building block, not the panacea for overcoming childhood poverty.
There have been many studies of Head Start over the years. Here’s a sample compiled by mediamatters in response to the study you cite.
Whatever the answers to my questions above @4, studies will be cited which support those answers.
(Actually, as I read it again, the mediamatters sample wasn’t a direct response to the 2010 study, not sure what prompted it.)
Book Salon up with Jeanne Theoharis’ The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks hosted by Peterr
Here’s a better thought:
For those women who want to stay at home to raise their children, provide then the money and materials to provide early childhood education.
I have this weird concept that motherhood, stay at home mothers, is a choice which provides immense value to society.
Both, even better. Tax those rich bastards and corps!
I heard that the benefits became evident again later on as the students hit high school and onward.
They haven’t studied that yet. The study suggest that the next group and its control group be followed into the third grade instead of stopping in first grade.
Quite frankly, I don’t understand how kafka gets that Headstart was a failure. During the time these children were exposed to early childhood learning they thrived. The effects of that may have been less noticable as the time between their exposure increased but that does not mean the experience did not stay with these children. I also think that just because you can not quantify something by saying x dollars spent on early education yields x results does not mean that something is a waste or failure. Some of life’s best experiences are not easily quantified, that does not mean they lack value.
Not every woman is stay at home material. Women should be allowed to choose what is in the best interest of themselves and their families. We should be providing resources for both groups of women, whether they stay at home or choose the workforce.
Furthermore, Headstart could potentially be a perfectly acceptable part time learning experience even for the children of mommies that stay at home. After all, at home mommies often have household errands that require them to put some of their concentration on tasks other than their progeny. Headstart could be potentially be better than parking them in front of a TV while mommy bakes or vacuums or does any number of the things women who stay home do.
The image of millions of young tots learning their ABCs and fingerpainting is hard to demonize as evil Big Government.”
Wow, you didn’t try very hard. How about “millions of children herded off to indoctrination pre-schools where they will be taught radical leftist songs and be forced to draw pictures of Obama and learn to hate America and love Muslims.”
USA is monetarily sovereign and creates money to feed the economy.
“Tax those rich bastards and corps!” is an independent statement not related to public social spending and the commons generally. I remark this to make sure it does not suggest USA can spend only what it collects in taxes.