If you're in the mood for some substantive campaign coverage, give Jeremy Manier's piece on early education in yesterday's Chicago Tribune a read. He lays out the latest research in the field, the debate it has spurred, and how the nominees' proposals reflect that divide. (In a sidebar, Manier also reports that Illinois' preschool program is considered one of the best in the country.)
Essentially, all education and psychology experts agree that early education is a vitally important investment, a topic we've covered before. But there are differences in opinion about when that investment should begin:
But as decades of academic studies on brain development start to land in the real world, experts are divided on whether to focus new funding on infants and toddlers, or conventional preschool. Many now think some policies popular with politicians and the public, such as universal prekindergarten, may fail to reach at-risk kids at a young enough age ...
Studies have suggested that intervening before children start preschool improves academic outcomes for low-income kids and may reduce the risk they will end up in prison. Such interventions stem from the theory that experiences in the first five years of life set a lifelong course for brain development.
Backers of universal preschool say the evidence for even earlier intervention is not yet solid and offering conventional prekindergarten to everyone would help build popular support for early education.
So who's right? Manier paints a pretty conclusive picture that the science supports intervention beginning at birth:
Children's brains change more between conception and kindergarten than at any other time. U. of C. neuroscientist Peter Huttenlocher showed in studies over the last 30 years that connections between cells in most brain areas peak by age 3, then decline gradually as experiences mold the brain's circuitry.
The zero-to-3 period is not necessarily a magical and irreplaceable window for teaching children. But studies show that babies raised in poverty get fewer of the early experiences that spur vocabulary growth and good social judgment, making it harder for them to catch up later on.
Given this context, how do the presidential programs stack up?
(More after the jump ...)
While both Democratic nominees lay out ambitious early education agendas, they certainly differ in focus. Sara Mead from the New America Foundation parsed the proposals earlier this month, and provides some helpful summations of both plans. First, Clinton's:
The centerpiece of Senator Clinton's early education agenda is her Universal Pre-k Plan, which her campaign rolled out nearly a year ago as her first major education policy proposal and one of her earliest big policy releases. Senator Clinton's plan would provide grants to states to establish high-quality pre-k programs.
Here's Obama's:
The centerpiece of Barack Obama’s early education agenda would be a new program of Early Learning Challenge Grants, which would provide states with funding to support quality child care, early education, and other services for pregnant women and children from birth through age five. States could use Early Learning Challenge Grant funds to support voluntary, high-quality preschool programs for three- and four-year olds, but universal pre-k is not the central focus of Obama’s early education strategy. Instead, states would be given flexibility in how they choose to expand quality pre-k and other early education programs.
If you buy the science, it seems Obama's plan is the best approach, but both have their advantages. And to their credit, they've each actually articulated a vision for the role early education can play in lessening education disparities, something the presumptive Republican nominee has all but ignored. McCain is making a habit of being outflanked on policy, isn't he?
(Hat tip: Kevin Drum)
Post new comment