Straight Platform Politics

Prekindergarten: The New Cure For Social Ills–Part 2

The pre-k movement: will we ever learn?

Psychologists investigated the wild claims of the self-esteem movement and found, to their dismay, that these claims were just that – claims – and nothing more. Their investigation uncovered several disadvantages of high self-esteem, but by then a generation had paid the price for this foolishness. See Part 1

Now we have more absurd claims from the pre-k movement. Are we going to be foolish again or are we going to learn from our mistakes? Are we going to ignore the negative effects of prekindergarten until another generation pays the price?

Any academic improvement from pre-k has been shown to dissipate by the end of the first grade. But the pre-k classroom misbehavior and aggression, which has been well documented, persists longer than any boost in academic performance.

If the wild claims of the pre-k movement are true, those states (like Georgia and Oklahoma) that have had pre-k systems in place for over 10 years should show a solidly positive academic effect. However, they don’t. In fact one such state was the worst performer in terms of fourth-grade reading tests.

Pre-k advocates continue to cite a pre-k project that is at least 40 years old. The Perry Preschool Project had only 58 children in the experiment group and all were considered intellectually challenged. The parents were required to be actively involved with the pre-k program and with the home visitation component of the project. This was not a typical pre-k program and any positive result cannot be expected, and has not been duplicated, in state-run prekindergarten systems.

Some economists may tout pre-k as an important component of economic development, but that is only because they want more mothers of young children to stay in or to enter the workforce. Pre-k is childcare and state-run pre-k is free (not for the tax-payers) childcare. It’s all about what is good for business; it is not about what is good for the child.

Perry Preschool Project, academic improvement, academic performance, academic skills, academics, achievement, aggression, childcare, cigarette use, claims, crime, criticism, depression, economic benefits, economic development, economic investment, economists, first grade, gross domestic product, investment return, job performance, misbehavior, mothers, negative effects, pre-k, pregnancy, prekindergarten, productive workforce, psychologists, reality, relational skills, self-esteem, self-esteem movement, sex, drugs, alcohol, social benefits, social ills, taxpayers, unreal, violence, welfare, wild claims, workforce, young children

The Self-Esteem Movement: Whatever Happened To Common Sense? Part 2

The self-esteem movement: Invading the classroom

Once the self-esteem movement took hold, there was no stopping it. School districts across the nation grabbed onto it as the panacea for societal ills. Self-esteem came first and academics came second.  See Part 1

Teachers and parents were told that as students’ self-esteem improved, academic achievement would follow. Students were supposed to be praised and protected from criticism. Core academic courses were secondary; self-esteem was everything. Saving society was at stake.

Grades became inflated. We had to protect students from failure. Everyone was a winner. Everyone was special. ‘A for effort’ was rampant. Students were not receiving an honest evaluation of their work.

State governments started programs to boost students’ self-esteem. Tax-payers were told that if children from low-income families were given new clothes for school, it would increase their self-esteem and thereby improve their academic performance. The few logical people who dared question such nonsense were ridiculed.

It was so unfair to the children to tie their self-esteem to material goods. What would happen when those new clothes were not new anymore? What were the children suppose to think of themselves then? Or were the tax-payers expected to continue paying for new clothes?

New clothes would make the children happy – temporarily. But did the new clothes programs result in improved academic achievement? No. There is nothing wrong in trying to make children happy. (But that’s not the responsibility of state governments. Service organizations are great resources for those types of programs.) But do not lie to them. Academic achievement takes hard work.

Were the teachers and parents successful in boosting the self-esteem of their children? Yes. Did it improve academic performance? No. American students have for many years scored at or near the bottom of international math and science tests. But they scored at the top in ranking their expected performance results. The students thought very highly of themselves as they were performing miserably.

We are now dealing with a generation of poor performers who have no clue, no idea of reality. But they do have high self-esteem.

academic performance, academics, achievement, classroom, commom sense, criticism, grade inflation, new clothes, reality, school districts, self-esteem, self-esteem movement