Will keiki trip over first steps?
July 8th, 2008 by David ShapiroIf Gov. Linda Lingle follows through with her intention to veto Senate Bill 2878, the “Keiki First Steps” program to greatly increase access to preschools for 20,000 3- and 4-year-olds who could benefit, it’ll be interesting to hear her reasoning.
In her pre-veto message, she raised concerns about the $170 million it could cost to fully implement the system over 10 years, which is certainly daunting in the current economy.
But the bill passed by the Legislature provides only $250,000 in seed money to get us on the road to joining 36 other states that provide publicly funded preschool.
Presumably, the council that would be created to oversee the program would devote itself mainly to finding federal money and forging public-private partnerships to get something going that the state can afford.
The the Legislature’s Early Learning Educational Task Force and studies by Aloha United Way and the University of Hawai’i have suggested that greater access to preschools may be the most important step toward improving student achievement in our public schools.
It seems a no-brainer: If students, especially from disadvantaged groups, start kindergarten better prepared to learn, they’ll do better as they move through the system.
“Children who have access to high-quality early learning experiences are more likely to become high school and college graduates, avoid entanglements with crime, and successfully contribute to their communities as employees and citizens,” said Robert G. Peters of Hanahau’oli School.
You’d think the idea would be embraced by Lingle, who made improving public schools a major campaign promise and loves public-private partnerships.
She’s had little impact on education in her first six years; after failing to break-up the statewide school system into six local districts, she’s involved herself mainly with fighting the school board over relatively small amounts of money and a fascination with robotics competitions as a symbol of her innovation initiative.
The small initial investment in “Keiki First Steps” seems reasonable for the huge potential payoff, and appears a good opportunity for the governor to add her clout to the effort and leave a mark on public education.
Update: Lingle followed through with her threat to veto the bill, complaining that it “establishes a council with administrative and spending powers outside of the framework of existing State agencies that are responsible for funding, licensing, and regulating these programs.”
In other words, she sees it as another attempt by the Democratic Legislature to end-run the Republican administration by moving administrative functions outside of the administration — in this case giving a special council authority properly held by the Department of Human Services.
If the Legislature overrides the veto, the council won’t get much cooperation from the administration, and consequently will likely accomplish little in the next 2 1/2 years— much like the Hawai’i 2050 commission that lawmakers set up in a similar manner.
It’s a shame that important priorities keep falling by the wayside because of pointless politics on both sides. Surely they could have talked and worked this out in the public interest.
You can read the governor’s full veto message here:
Tags: Education, Legislature, Linda Lingle
July 8th, 2008 at 8:54 am
can this program work outside of government schools? can home-schooling be one solution? is it fair to burden taxpayers to cough up more of their hard earned money for a government-controlled program that many parents might not want for their pre-schoolers? we are becoming fixated on getting “federal funding” for just about everything in our daily lives…getting that gravy comes with a very huge cost to citizens’personal liberty,prosperity,and right to private property.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:56 am
The Keiki First Steps Program as described in SB2878 will be a public-private partnership. Hawaii is currently 1 of 12 states without a state-funded pre-k program; however, approval of SB2878 will nont mean that Hawaii will join the other 38 states with a state-funded pre-k program, but also honor parent choice and cultural diversity through its 4 delivery settings: center-based, family child interaction learning, family childcare, and home-based instruction programs. SB2878 is pono for the future of Hawaii’s keiki and families…as well as our entire state.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Sorry for the typos in previous message.
The Keiki First Steps Program as described in SB2878 will be a public-private partnership. Hawaii is currently 1 of 12 states without a state-funded pre-k program; however, approval of SB2878 will not only mean that Hawaii will join the other 38 states with a state-funded pre-k program, but will also honor parent choice and cultural diversity through its 4 delivery settings: center-based, family child interaction learning, family childcare, and home-based instruction programs. SB2878 is pono for the future of Hawaii’s keiki and families…as well as our entire state.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
A position could be taken that an accessible state-run Keiki First Steps Program will not equal the quality of current or future private pre-k schools. Should this be true, the Keiki program will not negate the opportunity gap between those able to afford a quality preschool for their young ones and those whose children will benefit from the governmentally conceived educational plan. But what are the alternatives? Certainly anything is better than nothing.
The program will probably not be a panacea for the social costs of the failure of society to adequately provide for all individuals. Whats more, the success of the program is contingent upon its ability to provide “high-quality early learning experiences.” If the public educational system is not currently delivering high quality learning experiences to its students, why could it do so under the Keiki First Steps Program? If the answer is the public-private partnerships being proposed, why not extend these profitable partnerships across the entire spectrum of grade levels?
That being said, simply extending the blanket of state-run public education to cover a more of the body public may not be wise. What are the alternatives?
July 9th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
The idea that “Legislature’s Early Learning Educational Task Force and …Aloha United Way and the University of Hawai’i” could provide an impartial research confirming the benefits of early education is preposterous on it’s face.
These organisations are subsidiaries of the Democrat party interested in the growth of the government by all means necessary.
Would Dave consider “research” by NRA on Gun Control to be impartial? How about research by oil companies or Big Five Automakers on Global Warming?
This ridiculous process shall be familiar to Dave and to anyone who spent 4 decades around various government entities: First there is definitive “research” on the benefits of some new program (remember Brown vs. Board of Education research showing purported benefits of integration); then there is a small pilot project that is again evaluated by the proponents and Democrats feeding like pigs at the public troth showing resounding success (remember “research” showing benefits of mental patient deinstutionalization); then the program is funded and develops constituency followed by a total failure and collapse of public support. (See DOE Hawaii).
Let’s not delude ourselves about purported benefits - they are at best ephemeral while the costs are astronomical indeed. (see Felix Decree).
July 9th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Research suggests that that there are positive socioeconomic impacts that are directly correlated with early childhood education. One of the most famous longitudinal studies is the Perry Preschool Program. Some of its impressive outcomes include:
Less delinquency, including less contact with juvenile justice officials, fewer arrests at age 19, and less involvement in serious fights, gang fights, causing injuries, and police contact.
Less antisocial behavior and misconduct during elementary school and at age 15.
Fewer lifetime arrests through age 40 (36 percent vs. 55 percent with five or more arrests); fewer arrests for violent crimes (32 percent vs. 48 percent), property crimes (36 percent vs. 58 percent), and drug crimes (14 percent vs. 34 percent).
Higher academic achievement, including higher scores on standardized tests of intellectual ability and higher high school grades.
Fewer school dropouts at age 19 (33 percent vs. 51 percent), and higher rates of high school graduation.
Greater commitment to school and more favorable attitudes about high school.
More employed at age 27 (69 percent vs. 56 percent) and age 40 (76 percent vs. 62 percent); higher median annual earnings at 27 ($12,000 vs. $10,000) and 40 ($20,800 vs. $15,300).
Greater economic independence and less reliance on public assistance, including welfare usage.
Fewer pregnancies and births for women at age 19.
There have been other studies such as the Chicago Pre-School study and the Abecedarian study that confirm these results.
Oh, and by the way, none of these studies were done by the Democratic Party.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
How would Sonny know this fact? I would guarantee that everyone involved in the study, from the teachers (members of a Democrat controlled NEA) to the academics (all unionized Democrats) to anyone in the “helping professions” are self serving Democrats.
Some of the “results” cited by Sonny are nebulous and ridiculously vague as well as subjective in the extreme: “less antisocial behaviour”?!
Again, Media, Academia and Hollywood are domains of the DNC - please name me a single Conservative at the UH? History department? Hawaiian Studies? Poly sci? - any Liberal arts department, please.
These “studies” are generated at public expense as exhibits and friend of court filings by the Democrat attorneys that would later step in front of Democrat judges so that these programs would become the law and, therefore, cemented for years despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
Oh, one more. Perhaps Sonny can name a single Republican on the Board of Education, Hawaii Supreme Court, Editorial Board of The Advertiser….
July 10th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Fluffy, hate to pop your balloon but all the Republicans in the House voted to override the governor’s veto. It’s not a partisan issue despite your feeble attempts to make it so.
As far as the research goes, go and google “perry preschool” or “abecedarian” or look at the Oklahoma study or the Arkansas study.
You do know how to do research, right?
I mean you’re great at ranting and bleating.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Fluffy, what part of, say, “More employed at age 27 (69 percent vs. 56 percent) and age 40 (76 percent vs. 62 percent); higher median annual earnings at 27 ($12,000 vs. $10,000) and 40 ($20,800 vs. $15,300)” don’t you understand?
Oh, I know, just some padded stats drummed up by the vast left-wing conspiracy.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Let’s go to school, Gentlemen.
First thing first: Sonny - angry, insulting Liberal behaviour is not a substitute for an argument. Your totalitarian roots are showing - why debate when it is easier to debase. Try to be less typically Democrat next time.
Yes, some RINo’s voted for this program. (RINO - Republican In Name Only). It is still a Democrat driven pattern behaviour. By the way you have failed my challenge to name a single Conservative or Republican - QED, my point is proven.
I read the “studies” you so cleverly presented. They are rigged, circular arguments masquerading behind the wall of meaningless numbers.
Which bring me to charles: What is “employed” according to the study? Welfare recipients today are required to “work” at some government sponsored make believe jobs. Is that still “employed” in your book?
“Higher median earnings” - does it include transfer payments such as Welfare, Foodstams, Section 8 Housing, Quest medical (or it’s equivalent), Medicaid, etc, etc.? You get my drift.
The absolute numbers: $10K/per annum vs, $12K at 27 years of age (!?) suggest chicanery since these are not realistic survival wages. ($5/per hour will amount to $10,200/year).
Once again, Democrat academics cook ridiculous studies showing some marginal ephemeral gains for a carefully selected population of what appears to be members of a permanent underclass ($10K/year income). In the small population a minuscule change will result in the astronomical percentage increases. (If 5 people smoke in the company and only one quits - it will result in 20% drop!).
I am still waiting for a reasoned argument but do not expect any except for angry irrational insults.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Ah, Fluffy, you employ debating skills that I used in 8th grade. It didn’t work then as well.
I named Republicans. You called them RINOs. Of course, they are RINOs according to your definition, right? Unless you have an objective description or standard of what exactly is a RINO.
(Hey, I can say that your accusation of “Democrat academics” is faulty. After all, they are DINOs so in fact they are Republicans. See, it’s easy to take your train of thought and derail it.)
Take your time in coming up with that standard.
Oh, and I didn’t “cleverly” present anything. Just the facts, that’s all.
Tell you what, what don’t you post some links of studies that show preschool doesn’t work, has no results, and is meaningless.