 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
 |
|
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
Find out in this Q&A with the editors of The Pre-K Debates: Current Controversies and Issues |
|
About the editors
 Edward Zigler, Ph.D., is a Sterling Professor of Psychology, Emeritus, and Director Emeritus of the Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social Policy, Yale University. He was one of the founders of Head Start, Follow-through, and Early Head Start, among others. He has been in the field of preschool intervention for almost half a century. In 1970, Dr. Zigler was named by President Nixon to become the first director of the Office of Child Development (now the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families) and Chief of the U.S. Children's Bureau. While in Washington, D.C., he was responsible for administering the nation's Head Start program and led efforts to conceptualize and mount other innovative programs such as Home Start, Education for Parenthood, the Child Development Associate, and the Child and Family Resource Program. Dr. Gilliam's research involves policies regarding early childhood education and child care, ways to improve the quality of early childhood services, the impact of early childhood education programs on children's school readiness, and effective methods for reducing classroom behavior problems and the incidence of preschool expulsion.
W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D., is a Board of Governors professor and co-director of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Dr. Barnett's research includes studies of the economics of early care and education, including costs and benefits, the long-term effects of preschool programs on children's learning and development, and the distribution of educational opportunities. He got his start in the early childhood field working on the Perry Preschool study at the HighScope Educational Research Foundation.
Questions? Customer Service: |
Q: In the current fiscal environment in which many states are reducing investments in early learning, the U.S. government recently announced a $500-million Race to the Top competitive grant program to encourage states to "develop bold and comprehensive plans for raising the quality of early learning programs." What do you think of that?
A: We totally support continuing efforts to improve the quality of preschool education in America. The evidence is clear that investment in high-quality preschool education pays for itself several times over. The key issue here is what this money is designed to do. Race to the Top is great seed money for planning purposes. It is for states to develop plans but will not be sufficient for implementing those plans in the out years without continued support. States cannot spin gold from straw and must balance "bold" with "sustainable" to ensure they are generating improvements that will exist on more than paper alone. The Race to the Top–Early Learning Challenge provides an opportunity for states to develop plans to pull diverse funding streams and programs into a more comprehensive whole. The first question is whether states will answer the federal call for boldness in creating more cohesive systems of early education that can raise quality. The second question will be whether the federal government can use what the states learn in this process to remove as many of the barriers to a comprehensive system as possible. Q: As administrators consider how to develop quality programs, they can find insights into the most critical issues in your new book The Pre-K Debates: Current Controversies and Issues. How did you determine which issues to present, and which experts to present them? A: The main issues of debate presented in The Pre-K Debates are those that have been vexing early education for decades and dominate scholarly discourse and policy-oriented efforts. In an attempt to provide better clarity into these debates, we identified key experts, attempting to cover as many of the leading divergent opinions as possible. Whether they agreed or disagreed was not important. Rather, we welcomed differing opinions. At the end of the book is a synthesis of these opinions, highlighting where differing opinions converge more than expected and what new information may be needed to better understand the differences that remain. Q: For each of the issues that follow, can you frame the main views in the debate, and provide a brief summary of any middle ground that may exist? Which children should be included in pre-K: A: Perhaps the biggest question facing preschool is whether eligibility should be targeted specifically to low-income children or open to all children regardless of income. Although the issue may appear to be one of polar-opposite opinions, a variety of middle-ground options are available. Some argue that preschool should be universally accessible because it offers value for all and because a diverse mix of children is beneficial to program quality and effectiveness. Some argue that we have finite resources to invest, that the effectiveness is greatest for those who need pre-K most, and that, therefore, we should invest our resources where the greatest good may be achieved. Fortunately, mutually agreeable solutions can be offered. For example, public resources could be used to create opportunities for children to attend programs with a diverse array of children, and parents who can afford to pay for services could pay income-calibrated fees. Such solutions can be informed by both sides of the debate. What qualifications should be required for teachers: A: There has been much debate about what degrees or credentials preschool teachers should possess. This is not simply a matter of whether teachers should possess a bachelor's degree; it extends to the question of preservice training and ongoing teacher supports as well. Pre-K programs are highly diverse in quality. So, in all likelihood, are teacher preparation programs. Early childhood experts agree that highly effective teachers are necessary for highly effective programs. The convergent answers to this question seem to be a need to pay more attention to the quality of teacher preparation and to supporting all teachers through meaningfully intensive in-service training and supports. Should academic or social–emotional development be the focus of pre-K programs: A: There may not be as much disagreement on this question as might appear. Those who support a more traditionally academic focus do not seem to deny the importance of social-emotional development. Likewise, those who support a holistic approach that places a premium on social–emotional development do not seem to exclude developmentally appropriate academic skills development. The question appears to be the relative degree of each and the pedagogical issue of how specifically to teach young learners. Where should preschool be based: A: There has been much discussion about which locations and administrative structures might best deliver preschool education. Publicly funded preschool is currently provided across an array of provider organizations (public schools, private schools, Head Start programs, child care providers, other nonprofit agencies). The question is which programs are best equipped to provide a quality preschool experience to young children, and how can a system of early education best be created from the programmatic building blocks that currently exist? The emerging answer is wherever young children's learning can be best facilitated and parent involvement best supported. Should the educational system and public schools be involved? Yes. Should those who provide comprehensive services and safe and affordable care be involved? Yes. It's not the name on the front door that matters—it's what's happening inside that counts. Preschool has also been innovative in developing public–private partnerships in ways that do not exist in K–12. What about considerations for dual language learners and children with special needs: A: American children come with a diverse array of backgrounds and needs. Given enough years in the field, prekindergarten teachers will come into contact with students with many varied backgrounds and needs. Our teachers need the skill sets that will allow them to be maximally effective and confident in their abilities with all children. Q: And, finally, your book offers a balance of perspectives of respected leaders in the field ... in your own opinion, what would you most like the next phase of pre-K to look like? A: Currently, the U.S. has a trifurcated non-system of early childhood programming—early educational services through state-funded prekindergarten, comprehensive services through Head Start, and child care through a patchwork of child care providers. To this mix are added an array of ancillary programs designed to help support these settings. We would like to see these diverse funding streams and programs streamlined into a more comprehensive whole. In line with the goals of the Early Learning Challenge, we would like to see comprehensive programming that focuses on improved quality in all early childhood settings. Parents should not have to choose between education, comprehensive services with parental involvement, and affordable child care. The needs of children and families encompass all of these areas, and so should the programs that serve them. Of course, parents should be able to choose between specific approaches and have a voice in how their young children will be educated and cared for. But a solid floor-level of quality should exist in all early education programs, regardless of where the program is located, who teaches there, or how it is funded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|