Thursday, October 30, 2014

Preschool and Long-Term Benefits?

In another thread, we had a kindergarten teacher say this (bold mine):

I am a kindergarten teacher in a school where the vast majority of students live below the poverty line. My Head Start pre-K graduates not only have pre-academic skills, but, more importantly, understand how to listen to a story as a member of a group, how to solve interpersonal problems (i.e., how to take turns with a special object), have greater mathematical understanding, and have a far greater vocabulary in both their birth languages and English. 

 I have NEVER questioned the value of Pre-K. Frankly it's a luxury to be able to do so. 

I don't have any idea which I'll vote for, 1A, or 1B, because I've been too busy teaching to do my research, but I'll definitely be voting for something that increases access for the families I serve, who, although working and contributing in so many ways, cannot access quality early childhood education for their children.

Followed by SWK who said this (bold mine):

K Teacher, there is no doubt that children who come to kindergarten from a high-quality preschool are better prepared for kindergarten. That is not up for debate. The issue that I raised is that that preparation fades by 3rd or 4th grade, hence the "fadeout."

I agree with Lynn that the point of providing subsidized preschool for low-income children is not to better prepare them for kindergarten per se but to better prepare them for lifelong learning. And there's no evidence that participation in high-quality preschool has any effect whatsoever on long-term outcomes for the participants.

I think we would all be better served if we provided health care, dental care, and nutrition for low-income children and job-training and parental support for their parents. As Lynn wisely points out, we need to address the causes and effects of poverty. Preschool is no silver bullet despite how much advocates infer that it is.


Poverty, my friends, is the issue.  

We can have 6-hour "academic days"for preschoolers (that would be 1B).  Add in (at some point) wrap-around services. 

But it will NOT solve the problem.  Some help might be better than none, for sure.

But then again, help from birth to five might be better than none (that would be 1A).

Which is better?  Which will serve more low-income tots?  Who knows?  The answer is... no one.

But we need to stop thinking it's about "education" and not about society.

58 comments:

mirmac1 said...

Thumbs up times ten!

Dave said...

All agreed. The bottom line for us is that whatever programs come about should be housed in public school buildings, with the stability and integrity of public employees such as certified teachers, support staff, etc. Especially School Security!

Look no further than Center School when these boutique schools lack these essential student service providers.

Lynn said...

Dave,

Washington state has a K-12 public school system. There is no space in our buildings for preschool classes and no funding in our budgets to staff, supply and supervise those classes.

Anonymous said...

A quality preschool does make a difference for children living in poverty, but that benefit disappears after a couple years without family support. The Family Support Worker is CRUCIAL for lasting benefits, ECEAP knows this, so the ECEAP programs have been amazingly successful when you consider how little money the state funds per student. SPS does not know this, when the budget crunch came they added assistant sups and managers at Central Admin and cut Family Support Workers from almost all of the schools. So the gap gets bigger and bigger every year. No one really cares because poor people are invisible and voiceless because they are exhausted from earning a living and keeping their family together and do not have the time nor the know how nor the support to navigate the incredibly complex bureaucracy of our society. Lately their problems are compounded by those horrible souless creatures who go around spouting canards about how the poor deserves to be poor because they're lazy moochers. Social safety nets are totally shredded because even some quite decent people are buying into this BS. So poor kids fall further and further behind in school and teachers get blamed for everything.

The problem with the city's preschool for all plan is
1) IT is NOT for ALL
2)They budget for a gazillion administrators and managers making $150,000-200,000 per year, but ZERO Family Support Workers.
3)They do not want to pay the TEACHERS a LIVING WAGE. Preschool TEACHERS make the same per hour as MacDonald's workers, $9.32, except they get fewer hours per week and can only work 180 days per year on this plan.

So a person can choose to go work for a preschool and make $9.32 × 6.5 × 180 = $10,904.40 per year, or they can go work for Costco as a cashier, where they will get $20/hr after four years with full benefits.

All this push back against $15/hr and PD proposed by 1A! When I was a lifeguard in college way back when, my pay was $12/hr. All these years later and people are unwilling to pay those who teach and take care of their young children more than $9.32/hr.
When did our priorities and values get this way?

Anonymous said...

CCA forgot to sign post at 6:27

Anonymous said...

Reposting for anonymous @6:27 if it is deleted.


A quality preschool does make a difference for children living in poverty, but that benefit disappears after a couple years without family support. The Family Support Worker is CRUCIAL for lasting benefits, ECEAP knows this, so the ECEAP programs have been amazingly successful when you consider how little money the state funds per student. SPS does not know this, when the budget crunch came they added assistant sups and managers at Central Admin and cut Family Support Workers from almost all of the schools. So the gap gets bigger and bigger every year. No one really cares because poor people are invisible and voiceless because they are exhausted from earning a living and keeping their family together and do not have the time nor the know how nor the support to navigate the incredibly complex bureaucracy of our society. Lately their problems are compounded by those horrible souless creatures who go around spouting canards about how the poor deserves to be poor because they're lazy moochers. Social safety nets are totally shredded because even some quite decent people are buying into this BS. So poor kids fall further and further behind in school and teachers get blamed for everything.

The problem with the city's preschool for all plan is
1) IT is NOT for ALL
2)They budget for a gazillion administrators and managers making $150,000-200,000 per year, but ZERO Family Support Workers.
3)They do not want to pay the TEACHERS a LIVING WAGE. Preschool TEACHERS make the same per hour as MacDonald's workers, $9.32, except they get fewer hours per week and can only work 180 days per year on this plan.

So a person can choose to go work for a preschool and make $9.32 × 6.5 × 180 = $10,904.40 per year, or they can go work for Costco as a cashier, where they will get $20/hr after four years with full benefits.

All this push back against $15/hr and PD proposed by 1A! When I was a lifeguard in college way back when, my pay was $12/hr. All these years later and people are unwilling to pay those who teach and take care of their young children more than $9.32/hr.
When did our priorities and values get this way?


Reposted
CT

Gladys said...

I'm not thrilled about creating another layer of government. We can improve upon existing systems. BONUS: Burgess and Holly Miller wouldn't be involved.

mirmac1 said...

Dave,

School security?!? OMG. Look at how SPS handles school security at Old Van Asselt. Anyone can walk into the building unchallenged. No one in the office. No security plan in place. The building has vulnerable populations, including two SpEd preschools, in inferior facilities. THAT is what we can expect? Or is it because its just SpEd classrooms...

Lynn said...

CCA,

The city's plan calls for lead teachers to be certified teachers and to be paid on par with public school teachers.

Jet City mom said...

Where is funding coming from to get teachers certified?
At minimum they need two years of college if not a BA.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Yeah, I'm confused how the City plans on paying such high wages. And Georgia, which has had universal preschool for a decade, found as good outcomes with teachers with AA degrees as BAs.

Lynn said...

Where does the funding come from to get kindergarten teachers certified? They pay for their own education before they're hired.

From the city's action plan:

All newly hired staff will be required to meet the following standards:
• Director and/or Program Supervisor: Bachelor’s Degree in Early Childhood Education or a BA with college-level coursework in Early Childhood Education. Expertise or coursework in educational leadership and business management is also required.
• Lead Teachers: Bachelor’s Degree in Early Childhood Education or a BA and a State Teaching Credential with a P-3 Endorsement.
• Assistant Teachers: Associate’s Degree in Early Childhood Education or two years of coursework in Early Childhood Education meeting Washington State Core Competencies for Early Care and Educational Professionals.
• Coaches: Bachelor’s Degree in Early Childhood Education or a BA and a State Teaching Credential with a P-3 Endorsement. “Endorsements” in selected curricula are also required.

Anonymous said...

Also in the Action Plan (directly following the part Lynn posted):

"Current staff will be given 4 years to meet these requirements. The City will work with local colleges and universities to develop an alternate route program for teachers with Bachelor’s Degrees in fields other than Early Childhood Education. The City will also develop an alternative process through which experienced, high-quality lead teachers — as defined in the Implementation Plan — may be granted waivers."

So, current staff have 4 years to fulfill any new requirements and lead teachers may be able to get waivers and the plan also references tuition assistance for teachers choosing to further their education and qualifications (and earning potential) with a 4 year degree.

- Yes 1B

Voted NO said...

"So, current staff have 4 years to fulfill any new requirements and lead teachers may be able to get waivers and the plan also references tuition assistance for teachers choosing to further their education and qualifications (and earning potential) with a 4 year degree. "


The city never mentioned the amount of scholarships available. Who would receive those scholarships?

What about the Alternative Certification pathways? TfA?

How about those 42 administrators? How about those administrative salaries? We don't need another level of administration. Improve upon what we have.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone have a citation of the author and date of research studies that show the effect of Pre-K fades by 3rd grade? I'm the K teacher whose post Melissa cited, and in my own anecdotal experience, quality pre-K still shows benefits even with high-schoolers. I'd be interested to see the actual journal article(s) describing the "fade" effect referenced. Thank you.

K Teacher

Anonymous said...


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/head_start_executive_summary.pdf

PSP

dan dempsey said...

I've been a big reader of research. The phrase

"Long Term Benefits"

Sure rang a bell. Yup, most of what I've found backs up the fading of any advantage before middle school.

On the other hand, what has been shown to work over the long term has been Florida's requirement that students be Readers to advance to grade 4.

Check out NAEP scores in Florida at grades 4 and 8 over the last 12 years. Schools and parents are doing a much better job of teaching children to read. The percentage of kids not advancing to grade four has been steadily declining. While student test scores have been continually rising.

If the supposed Ed Advocates wish to improve the situation for students over the long haul, perhaps they need to look at research and push a plan shown to work.

-- Dan Dempsey

dan dempsey said...

NAEP scores for Florida:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/

1992 to 1998 4th grade reading was significantly lower than the national average. Consistently about 7 points below national average.

2005 to 2013 4th grade reading is significantly above the national average. Now 5 to 6 points above national average.

1992 at or above basic reading 52%
At or above proficient 21%
At advanced 3%

2013 at or above basic 75%
At or above proficient 39%
At advanced 9%

=======
Grade 8 reading:
1998 at or above basic 67%
At or above proficient 23%
At advanced 1%

2013 at or above basic 77%
At or above proficient 33%
At advanced 3%
========

The cost of implementing Florida's statewide requirement was very little. The bang for the buck for the Seattle Pre-School levy just is not there. A big waste of public funds is being pushed by those who fail to make decisions based on relevant data.

To improve a system requires the intelligent application of relevant data.

dan dempsey said...

In 2013 Florida 4th grade reading results on NAEP - raw score
Black students 212 : White 236

In Washington state in 2013
Black students 211 : White 232
====================

In 2013 Florida 8th grade reading results on NAEP raw score
Black students 254 : White 274

In Washington state in 2013
Black students 258 : White 279

====================

Washington normally outperforms Florida in NAEP testing.

Free and reduced lunch % in Florida = 57.5%. while WA state is 45%

Pupil teacher ratio
US average 15.96
Florida 15.25
Washington 19.68

WA spends about $600 per student more than Florida to educate students. Each state spends less than the national average.

Dave said...

Lynn

Seattle sppends so much more per student than any other district on administration that theres money all right.. Its just being spent on the wrong things.

I

Anonymous said...

Is there any data on student academic performance in 1 versus 2 parent families?

Wondering

Anonymous said...

With regard to Florida's increased reading scores on the NAEP, didn't Florida implement constitutionally mandated smaller class sizes?

-Fedmomof2

Melissa Westbrook said...

Wondering, are you speaking of preschool or K-12?

NO TFA said...

1B is offering "alternative certification". The city also wants individuals with 4 year degrees. We're looking at Teach for America.

Teach for America has extended into Early Learning. Do the research, this and more:

http://www.gm.com/company/aboutGM/gm_foundation/press_releases/teach_for_america_partnership.html

The city wants teachers to "loop" from prek to first grade. There is also documentation that the city will want to include prek teachers in K-5 professional development.

If 1B passes, the board must assure an iron-clad agreement that prek hires will not be allowed to saunter into K-5.

I believe there are parts of the country that would benefit from individuals with 4 year degrees and TfA in preschool classrooms, but Seattle is NOT one of those places.

No TfA said...


It should also be noted that Teachers United is fully behind 1B.

While it is wonderful that Teachers United supports prek initiatives, I can't believe that they don't want to expand their agenda and include TfA.

I hope this issue gets more attention.
http://www.teachersunitedwa.org/events

If 1B passes, the board should fully reject any attempt to incorporate TfA into K-5 professional development and mentorship agreements. We don't need to create a pipeline for charter school teachers.

No TfA said...

Clarification: Early Learning wants to loop pre- to K teachers (not first grade).

There will be enormous implications for our K-5 classrooms if the city contracts with TfA.

Whatever happened to the district's contract with TfA? The contract has not come-up for renewal or cancellation. Very convenient.

Anonymous said...

Chris Eide, his wife Bree, Clover Codd and Tim Burgess are all political pals who are trying to get up the power ladder.

That is my problem with the pre K rage. It is the du jour issue for Democratic party climbers to prove themselves to their party elite. Research about ceiling effects are nothing but an inconvenient truth.

enough already





Ragweed said...

I don't think the research on fade out is really that damning of Pre-K. What it shows essentially is that the benefits of pre-k need follow-up - you can't just give poor kids an advantage in the early years and then abandon them when they get to grade school. But that does not mean that the Pre-k is not providing an important start.

I think it could particularly be important for solving some of the issues around the lack of diversity in the HCC. We know that IQ in early childhood is very malleable, and that the kind of enriching environment that educated middle-class families can afford to provide gives those kids an advantage. If quality pre-k can give kids without the middle-class advantage a leg up in cognitive development, we will see a more diverse HC program.

What terrifies me about 1B however, is the idea of TFA teachers doing Pre-K. We already have major issues with disproportionate discipline in SPS and the rest of the US. To think that a 5 week training course will prepare (mostly white) college graduates to overcome a lifetime of social conditioning and be culturally sensitive with young children from different backgrounds is just absurd. So African-American, Latino and Native American 3 and 4 years olds will be disproportionately punished for doing the same things their white peers are doing, and not have to wait till Kindergarten to learn they are "bad kids". Lets just start the school-to-prison pipeline with 3-year-olds!

dan dempsey said...

Dear Fedmomof2,

In 2002 Florida passed a class size initiative that has constitutional force. In grade 3 the limit is 18 students.

Districts are fined if classes exceed the limit.

Here is an article that shows how this regulation has been ... slightly ignored.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article2154591.html

In my earlier posts you will see that the Florida teacher pupil ratio is below the national average, while in WA it is way above it.

-- Dan

mirmac1 said...

Isn't it telling that among the (few) audience attendees was Lindsay Hill, the under-employed director of the PNW branch of TFA. She should wear a sign that say "Will work for patronage"

The expired contract with SPS was mercifully allowed to die a quiet death. I don't think they deserved that mercy. Meanwhile, for those TFA grads who continue to teach (assuredly better now than 2-3 years ago), I thank them for committing themselves to a truly honorable profession.

Anonymous said...

With all the discussion of the "fade-out" effects in a previous thread, I find it ironic that the 1B mailer I received today from Education Reform Now states that: "kids who receive quality pre-K have better high school and college graduation rates, lower levels of behavioral problems and delinquency, and experience higher levels of economic success as adults". (No citations given).

So it has long term effects when the "right" people are pushing for early childhood, and does not have long term effects when the "wrong" people are pushing for early childhood ed?

CT

Anonymous said...

TFA does refer to its early childhood plan in the leaked memo available in the Nation article - "This Is What Happens When You Criticize TFA"
http://m.thenation.com/article/186481-what-happens-when-you-criticize-teach-america

(And I'd you're a MoJo subscriber, they sold your email info to TFA.)

CT

dan dempsey said...

Ah for those looking for data....

Try these from Jay Greene's writings.

Head Start Manipulating Scum Bags

http://www.educationviews.org/head-start-manipulating-scumbags/

Head Start revealed
http://jaypgreene.com/2013/01/14/head-start-revealed/

City Journal = So Much for Evidence

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0203jg.html

Look at paragraph 3 above: Despite excellent evidence that the program does not work.

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/blog/head-start-basically-has-no-effect

Above notice Feds delayed releasing the Head Start report as it revealed "No Effect".

=====
So where is the high quality study that shows spending money on programs like these produces the results promised?

-- Dan

Anonymous said...

Umm....not sure what you were hoping for, but
using the Goldwater Institute as a credible source is like saying Fox News is fair and balanced and all hosts are qualified to speak on all topics. Even ex-Arizonans like me and native Arizonans like my Barry-Goldwater-loving-stepdad know not to trust the Goldwater Institute. They abuse the name.
And Jay P Greene is professor of Ed deform at U of Arkansas, a department solely created and paid for by Walmart/Waltons to discredit public ed. Have any better sources?

CT



Anonymous said...


I m not sure I understand the argument against PreK for low income kids: yes they come better prepared for K but the effect fades away, so why bother ??? We should just put those cute little low income kids in a nicely decorated room ( because you CARE for those kids after all) with some relaxing music maybe but no quality instruction as it doesn't last! But why can we try it? I mean what's to lose? How can you refuse the same quality of education you are yourself giving to your children ? How can you raise your children, want the best for them and at the same time, prevent other parents from getting the best for their own children? I'm so saddened by the sense of entitlement in a lot of the people in this blog, too much privilege I guess.. Meanwhile a mother and daughter being murdered, a boy left traumatized leaves 2 answers .. Humanity lost today..I shouldn't read this blog, it kills my soul.
HCMom

Lynn said...

HCMom,
I wouldn't enroll my child in the city's preschool program. A six hour academic day is not appropriate for three and four year olds.
If the city is going to spend money to improve the academic success of kids in low income families, I'd prefer it be spent on something effective. There's not enough evidence that this will make a difference. Let's find something that will.

I don't understand your reference to what humanity lost today. Did I miss something? And how is it related to preschool?

Anonymous said...

@HCmom

I think we should improve upon and add more spots to the programs that we already provide. We have preschool available throughout the city and in our schools now.

http://www.seattle.gov/humanservices/children_families/school/early_learning.htm

http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=223310

http://www.freepreschools.org/city/wa-seattle.html

PSP

Melissa Westbrook said...

HC Mom, honestly, that's a lot of hyperbolic talk on your part. We are having a discussion about a ballot issue.

I think we all agree preschool is good for ALL kids. But to what degree? Researchers don't even agree. So you cannot fault people for having differing opinions.

You show me one person here who said "I don't want preschool for kids." You won't find it.

I wrote about the Aki Kurose story, maybe you missed it.

As for "it kills my soul," you obviously live a sheltered life because if you think this blog is the worst thing on the Internet, you haven't read much.

Anonymous said...

If we are serious about closing the achievement gap we have to help the whole family, not just the preschooler. There are kids who are able to learn and excel and succeed without any family support, while living in chaos and poverty, but they are very rare. And even those kids sometimes don't quite make it. The Homeless to Harvard girl dropped out after a year, even with full scholarship. The wounds of a unstable, unsafe childhood last forever sometimes.
The help of Family Support Counselors and Public Health Nurses are absolutely essential. They know of resources, governmental, non profits, pro bonos that can help poor families achieve stability in housing and food, safety and peace of mind, they advocate for those who don't know how to navigate our bewildering society, who do not know the rights and benefits that the law give them. Just having someone who they can call and ask what to do, where to go and be assured that this person will listen and help and not judge is immensely comforting and empowering for people. It allows families to feel safe, to have hope, to believe that their kids' lives CAN be better than theirs. This is how so many immigrants come here with nothing, sometimes running away from genocide, sometimes coming from cultures that don't even have a written language, and yet their children grow up to get PhDs from Harvard and Stanford and Cornell. We can't help the children succeed without helping the parents get to a place where they have the stability and energy and time to help their kids. Let's be realistic, a lot of classes in school are totes zzzzzz and take major determined slogging to get through. Teachers, no matter how devoted, can't do this for the kids. It HAS to be the family who cajole and nag and do whatever works to get them through classes that bore them and classes they don't see any use for. The family support worker is absolutely ESSENTIAL!

And that is the problem with 1B, the City's plan. They are planning to spend the bulk of the money they're asking for on the WRONG personnel. All those $150,000, $200,000 admin people! WHATEVER FOR? It's preschool, to be run by SPS, all the nuts and bolts function are already taken care of, transportation, maintenance, calendars, safety. There's no texts to choose, no tests to buy, no boundaries to fight over. What ARE ALL these highly paid people going to do with their time? Spend 52 weeks choosing the right crayons and playdough? Too many Queens, not enough WORKER BEES! I almost think that the goal for this plan is to give high paying jobs to friends and children of friends and other people with the "right connections". The plan makes no sense.

Let's just look at the proposed teachers' pay. Yes Lynn, I did see what they proposed, I just didn't believe it. I'm sure that you, Lynn, must have seen all the postings against 1A's $15/hr and paid PD for teachers, as you seem to spend an amazing amount of time on every single thread. So we're to have a caste system of preschool: At the top,SPS's for the chosen low income 2000, funded at $10,000/kid, taught by certified teachers with BAs, who are paid $30,000-$80,000/yr, full benefits. Then we have the non SPS preschools for higher income families, spending $6,000-$7,000/kid,staffed with teachers paid $9.32/hr &:on medicaid & foodstamps just as if they were working for Walmart. And the rich families will pay $1,500-$2,000/mo for their children to attend these schools.
There are a lot good people who are totally willing to pay more taxes so poor kids can go to preschool. They see the criminal waste of these children's potential and the immorality & high cost to our society of the school to prison pipeline. But cynical me can't see that they'd be too happy to fund a Tesla preschool for poor kids while their kids go to the Yugo outfit at $2000/mo.

CCA

dan dempsey said...

Dear CT,

About Jay Greene and Fox News etc.

Check the data. Look at who conducts the studies and the controls.

I share your concern with Ed Reformers .... but the data I've referred to is solid.

=====
Now about the Ed Reform crowd...

Check WA State's performance on NAEP in 2013. WA State comes in 8th out of 52 (WA DC and DOD schools are included).

8th out of 52 is impressive in my book .... but WA gets a "C" grade because of not doing the things the Ed reformers deem as needed. (What ?? that "C" grade is BS)

I point out that ALEC's report is co-authored by Jay Greene

Link to the ALEC NAEP report through Jay Greene's blog.

You are definitely correct to question some positions taken by Mr. Greene.

Anonymous said...

A bunch of somebodies either didn't think things through, or have motives and goals that are not closing the achievement gap. Vote NO, and write to Burgess et al., tell them we already have an extremely successful preschool program that is run incredibly well by a staff of less than 10, none of whom makes anywhere near $150,000-$200,000 per year, for the last several decades in Seattle. IT IS CALLED ECEAP. Many of the Rainier scholars and the few poor students in APP and the minority kids recruited by Bush, Seattle Prep, Holy Names, Lakeside etc were ECEAP kids.

Tell the movers and shakers we want Preschool for All modelled on ECEAP, AND run by the devoted, amazing people who have been doing it all these years extremely well on a shoestring of less than $6,000 per child per year.

Send the City/SPS costly and misguided plan to tge Round File. EXPAND the ECEAP PROGRAM.

CCA

Anonymous said...

BTW,

I do not work for ECEAP or any preschool, though I admire all of them greatly. Yeah, from my experiences with fieldtrips with my kids classes (with older kids, thank Xena), a couple of days with just 10 preschool kids would send me to a long rest in the white padded room. Ugh, why do they call it terrible twos when it lasts 4 years?

CCA

Anonymous said...

CCA, whomever/whoever you are, thank you--for your insight, sharing of first-hand experience, and judgment.

I am largely out of the loop, so I don't even know what ECEAP even is. But what is effective is all that matters in the trenches and in individual lives.

Please keep contributing to this blog.

Effective early intervention that is systemic and effectively sustained will change lives and society.

Many people who are behind the current initiatives have their own agendas. Others truly care.

--enough already

Melissa Westbrook said...

"And that is the problem with 1B, the City's plan. They are planning to spend the bulk of the money they're asking for on the WRONG personnel."

I agree. A lot of people being hired will be "coaches" and people to analyze data.

ECEAP are state-funded preschools (versus Head Start which is federal).

Enough, I agree that some people behind 1B are people of good faith but yes, clearly personal agendas beyond the kids.

Lynn said...

CCA,
I'm not supporting the city's plan. I just don't like to see inaccurate statements used to support an argument. The city's plan does not call for paying teachers minimum wage.

You said about the city's plan "It's preschool, to be run by SPS, all the nuts and bolts function are already taken care of, transportation, maintenance, calendars, safety. There's no texts to choose, no tests to buy, no boundaries to fight over." SPS has not been invited to (nor has the district agreed to) run the city's preschool program. The district hasn't weighed in on the curriculum, or offered to provide transportation, maintenance or safety resources. Can you explain why you think the district will be providing these functions?

I'm sorry that you're tired of seeing my comments here. I'll think about whether I have anything to add to the conversation before posting. In the meantime, you might consider just ignoring them.

I'm interested in hearing more about expanding ECEAP. I did a little reading online about the program. It looks like contractors receive over $7,000 a year per child for a 3.5 hour, four day a week, nine month preschool seat. An equivalent rate for the hours included in the city's program would be $15,000. It's likely that the costs above that amount for the city's plan are due to those administrative salaries. It could also be teacher salaries. Do you know how much ECEAP teachers are paid? The center I found in Seattle (Tiny Tots Development Center) doesn't provide benefits for it's teachers. Does the city's plan include those costs?

Thanks for any information on ECEAP you can provide.

Anonymous said...

CCA, you said, "Then we have the non SPS preschools for higher income families, spending $6,000-$7,000/kid,staffed with teachers paid $9.32/hr &:on medicaid & foodstamps just as if they were working for Walmart. And the rich families will pay $1,500-$2,000/mo for their children to attend these schools."

So, are they spending $6,000-7,000 per year or $18,000-24,000 per year? I'm confused.

Frankly, I'm confused about all of your posts in the thread. I'm not sure for what you're advocating other than to restore Family Support Workers, which seems like a good idea.

--- swk

Lynn said...

Oops. It looks like I made a mistake. The city's plan will cost less than ECEAP per hour of preschool provided.

Anonymous said...

The Washington State Association of Head Start and ECEAP has endorsed 1B.

Yes 1B

cmj said...

The Pre-school Initiative is rife with flaws and would serve only a small portion of low-income preschoolers in Seattle. Why should SPS be starting up Pre-K when it doesn't even provide free full-day kindergarten to all students? (It is good, though, that full-day kindergarten is free for FRL students.)

I would support increasing funding for the Family Support Program. Right now, SPS doesn't even have an FSW at every elementary school, and some of the FSWs are responsible for multiple schools, according to the SPS FSW directory.

NW mom said...

It's flabbergasting to me that Head Start endorsed 1B. I don't get that at all.

Anonymous said...

NW mom, why wouldn't Head Start and ECEAP endorse 1B? Some of those HS and ECEAP programs will be eligible for funding if 1B passes and be able to expand.

Also, some of the directors from those programs probably think they will be able to snatch up some of those high-paying administrator gigs --- it's unfortunate that they don't get that those gigs will only go to campaign people, friends and family of the plutocrats, political operatives, and Gates folks. It's not what you know in this city, it's definitely who you know.

--- swk

Melissa Westbrook said...

NW Mom, we all support preschool but 1A and 1B, by NOT presenting ONE united proposition to voters, have created winners and losers for those who serve young children.

Yes, there are some entities that will benefit from 1A and some from 1B. They just picked sides.

It's very sad. Not because people aren't entitled to care about their entities and their careers. But because the first thought wasn't to get the best, most widespread and most accessible plan for low-income kids.

Dina said...

Head Start and EACP teachers would receive higher salaries via 1B.

Shall we talk about family members that might land one of those high paying admin. jobs in city hall?

Anonymous said...

1) I have been told that the people who will staff the City's new Early Learning Department have already been chosen. I do not know that this is factual but I trust the people who told me this completely and do not believe they would make such a claim if it wasn't true. They are not affected by what is happening & have no ax to grind.
2) I've also been told that the State has already agreed to expand ECEAP. I do not know what the City plans to do vis-à-vis ECEAP expansion in Seattle, but the program will be expanded in the rest of the state even if Seattle decides against expanding it here. Previously ECEAP has not been able to get providers north of the Ship Canal because the funding rate is so low that preschool providers in the North end can make more money as private preschools. This problem apparently has been surmounted, I do not know the details, as I have been slammed with an insane schedule lately and haven't been able to meet & ask. I hope it is true as we have many children living in poverty in the North end also.
3) Lynn, I think you need to do some deeper research, as the numbers you quote can not be correct. If the City is planning year-round, full time preschool, then $10,000/per child is no where near enough with the huge administrative staff and the high salaries they are proposing. I could be wrong about this if things have changed since the info about the plan was posted by mimac1 and Melissa re the plan's administration & SPS involvement. In any case SPS has to provide transportation to any child with a disability whether they run the City's program or not.
Thank you for being willing to learn about ECEAP, you can get info on the program through public disclosure requests with the City and State; from the people who run the programs; and from the Policy Councils. There are ECEAP programs with the EEU, El Centro de la Raza, Seamar, Refugees Women Alliance, Tiny Tots etc. in Seattle (notice that most of these orgs are nonprofits). The Seattle programs are extremely successful at providing kids with a leg up and the benefits actually last lifelong because the program involve the whole family in their children's education. I know less about the rest of the State, but I believe they are great too.
4)Enough and Lynn, ECEAP is a state funded program that provides free preschool attendance to children living at or below 110% federal poverty level, with priority for Special Ed children in this income bracket. The program provides wrap-around services for the student's family. Its policies are decided by Parents Policy Councils made up of parents with at least two representatives from each school. The PPC meetings are once per month with dinner, child care and gas reimbursement to make attendance possible for all families. There are PD/Education/Training provided, chosen by parents, paid for by ECEAP, available to teachers AND parents. There is a No Expulsion policy and a MAJOR effort to involve the whole family with monthly evening family meetings/dinners/activities at the schools incorporating all students' home cultures. Parents can go to State's ECEAP meetings to have a voice in state-wide ECEAP policies and have advocracy meetings with WA legislators twice per year.
There is a youtube video that gives you an idea of the program, made by the families a few years back. Take a look. Because of its philosophy of parental support and involvement, many parents become empowered & learn how to be life long advocate/activists for all children's education. Each year there is a retreat in the summer so parents can plan for the new school year.
(continued)

CCA


Anonymous said...

(continue)

Yes, the programs are half-days because it is actual school, not daycare. The kids are taught letters, numbers, science, cultures, gardening, music, art, etc. in addition to social skills & study skills necessary for Kindergarten & beyond. Breakfast and sncks are provided so kids can learn how to eat in big groups (& provide food for kids who might not get any at home). The teachers have lesson plan for each day. Often there are parents and others who volunteer to come in to teach kids skills of their profession: cooking, photography, dance, instrumental music...So half a day is plenty for 3, 4 y.o. (Also it is what the state is willing to fund, altho many of the schools also have daycare for rest of day and summers for working parents).
It's been a few years since I was able to volunteer with Early Learning as an activist, so I do not have the latest knowledge, but I believe the program is as excellent as ever because 1)Still run by same people & 2)The State has been willing to fund it through the worst of the budget cuts because the results are so great, even with the extremely low budgets. Best return for $ of all programs.
5) swk, I read over my previous post and it said what I wanted to say. Perhaps your inability to understand it is because you are not an impartial bystander, given that your wife runs/owns a private preschool and you are against a $15/hr living wage and paid PD for preschool teachers.

CCA



Anonymous said...

Spell gremlins:

advocacy has no r
snacks has an a

There prob. are others but (insane schedule...must.stop.procrastinating)

VOTE VOTE VOTE
"freedom is in the choice" (not my words but they are great words.)

CCA

Anonymous said...

CCA, when did I say that I was against a $15/hr living wage and paid PD for teachers? I don't believe you'll find those statements anywhere in any of my comments.

So, it appears that you not only make convoluted points, you draw false conclusions about others' statements. Total BS.

I'm against raising the costs of preschools while at the same time limiting their ability to raise revenue to meet these costs. First, there's nowhere in the 1A proposition language that states the PD costs will be covered. Second, I have no problem paying teachers and staff $15/hr and those preschools providing "enhanced" PD to teachers and staff if preschools are allowed to pass those higher costs along to their families. 1A would restrict the ability of preschools to do so, resulting in the lowering of quality of the preschools due to the need to cut costs elsewhere.

I'm against 1A because it's a bad plan. I'm against 1B because it's a bad plan.

Get your facts straight.

--- swk

Anonymous said...

CCA, please also provide some evidence (i.e., a longitudinal study) that demonstrates that the ECEAP "results are so great."

Anecdotes don't cut it.

--- swk