The
Kaine administration justifies its push for a
universal pre-K program in Virginia with an argument
that could come straight out of MBA school: Better
preparing young children for elementary school
increases the odds that they'll succeed
academically, which means they're less likely to
drop out, go on welfare, commit crimes and spend
time in jail. In essence, the Kainiacs are borrowing
the "life cycle" management methodology
from the business world and applying it to social
policy.
I'm
all in favor of investing small amounts now in order
to save money later, as long as the numbers aren't
cooked to reach a fore-ordained conclusion. But
permit me to introduce another business tool: Return
on Investment analysis. When businessmen
"invest" their dollars, they compare
alternative uses of their capital. They don't fund
every project that might save money: They fund those
that offer the highest return on investment.
For
purposes of argument, I'm willing to accept Gov.
Timothy M. Kaine's proposition that universal pre-K
will not only improve the lives of our fellow citizens
but will save taxpayers money in the long run. Not
everyone accepts that argument -- see Chris
Braunlich's column, "Does
Universal Pre-K Work," December 12, 2005 --
but I'm willing to set aside that concern in order
to explore a different question: Of all the
potential new investments that the Commonwealth can make in
education, will universal pre-K yield the highest
return?
I
don't pretend to be an expert in Virginia's
educational system, but I do happen to serve on the
board of directors of kSero Corporation, a company
that operates a cognitive development center in
western Henrico County, and I have chatted at length
about educational and social issues with its CEO,
Dr. Susan Hardwicke. Hardwicke, who also founded
EduTest, a successful online testing company,
questions a core tenet of universal pre-K: that
greater development of social, emotional, motor and
cognitive skills among toddlers in pre-school can
overcome the cultural pathologies of American
culture and the institutional
failures of Virginia's educational system that
depress
academic performance of older children.
As
an expert in educational testing, Hardwicke starts
with the results of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP). Virginia children
perform fairly well in the early years. When it
comes to explaining why so many children ultimately
drop out and fail to become successful adults,
Hardwicke says, "The locus of the problem is
between 4th and 8th grade."
Virginia
Performance in NAEP
(2005)
|
|
Achievement
Level (%)
|
|
Sub
|
Basic
|
Proficient
|
Advanced
|
Math |
|
|
|
|
4th grade
|
17
|
44
|
33
|
6
|
8th grade
|
25
|
42
|
25
|
8
|
Science |
|
|
|
|
4th grade
|
20
|
40
|
35
|
5
|
8th grade
|
34
|
31
|
31
|
4
|
Reading |
|
|
|
|
4th grade
|
28
|
35
|
29
|
8
|
8th grade
|
22
|
42
|
33
|
3
|
Writing |
|
|
|
|
4th grade
|
11
|
60
|
27
|
2
|
8th grade
|
12
|
56
|
29
|
3
|
Source:
National Assessment of Educational Progress
The
good news in the numbers above is the marginal
improvement
in reading and writing proficiency between 4th and
8th grades.
"That tells us that some of the early
reading initiatives seem to be working," says
Hardwicke.
The
discouraging news is the significant
deterioration in mathematics and science. "In
the 4th to 8th grades," Hardwicke continues,
"they're not developing the [math and science]
skills ... they need. Pre-K won't help that."
In
other words, Virginia children start strong. But the
longer they spend in the Virginia school system, the
weaker they get.
Hardwicke
sees a number of systemic problems in the
educational system and the popular culture which
bear no connection to how many years toddlers spend in pre-K learning to
recite their numbers and their A,B,Cs.
Standardized
curriculum. Children
develop at different rates, Hardwicke observes, yet
they are herded through a standardized curriculum based
on their age. "You run the risk of rapid
learners being slowed down by the system. There's
also pressure to see [slower learners] pushed
through. We see some advancement through grade
levels when it's not warranted."
Non-academic
instruction. Considerable time is spent in
school on subjects not related to the academic
curriculum. Safety. Drugs. Family planning.
"Topics may relate to societal education,"
Hardwicke says, "but they don't relate to academic
success" needed to get a job in the Knowledge
Economy.
Length
of school year. In Europe, children attend
school for more hours every day, and for more days
out of the year. There is a direct connection
between how much time children spend in school and
how much they learn, Hardwicke contends. Why add
another year of school (or pre-K) instead of making
better use of the grades we've already got? Why
shouldn't children attend school year round?
Those
are all valid questions, but what really fascinates
me are the cultural pathologies. And I'm not just
talking about the widely discussed pathologies of the
poor like out-of-wedlock births, drug addiction and
the rest of the grim litany. I'm talking about
pathologies that cut across American society.
When
Hardwicke launched kSero, her business model
centered on developing the fundamental
building blocks of cognition -- short-term memory,
attention and focus, processing speed, and the like
--
which are necessary to progress to more complex
cognitive skills like pattern recognition, logic and
problem solving, which, in turn, are needed to
progress to advanced reasoning, creative thinking
and insight. She envisioned the Center as a
"gymnasium for the mind," where children
would work on specific mental exercises geared to
their cognitive portfolio.
While
Hardwicke experienced some demand for cognitive
training, she encountered dozens of children --
representative of millions more around the country
-- whose problems with academic performance were
more related to behavior than cognitive development. "We are very concerned about kids in
middle- and upper middle-class homes, not just the
public housing projects," says Hardwicke.
Perhaps
the single biggest problem is poor nutrition.
Parents don't enforce healthy eating. They indulge
their children with sugar and trans fats. Not only
does poor nutrition put children at risk of obesity,
it affects their behavior and their cognitive
development.
Too many kids are stoking
up on
carbs, then mentally crashing. Also, says
Hardwicke, "The quality of thinking is directly
dependent upon cell-to-cell communications and
neurotransmitters
in the brain. Memory is dependent upon acetylcholine.
You need quality fats in the diet. This is a serious
problem. It's related to the epidemic of attention
deficit in class -- you can't cure it just by
dispensing pharmaceuticals."
Through nutritional
changes alone, says Hardwicke, some of
her clients have shown dramatic improvement --
better moods, longer attention spans, more energy to get
through the day, and improved academic performance.
Another
epidemic is sleep deprivation. Too many parents are
unable or unwilling to enforce regular sleeping
habits. "Children are allowed to stay up until one o’clock!"
Hardwicke marvels. "Sleeping is when the brain consolidates learning.
When sleep is disrupted, the optimization of the
brain doesn’t occur." The neurophysiology of
sleep is something that parents cannot be expected
to know. But it doesn't take a Ph.D. in cognitive
science to figure out that children have more
difficulty paying attention in class when they're
tired.
Hardwicke's
other bugaboo is electronics. Television and
computer games interfere with the hard-wiring of
developing brains, she says. The child may look
passive sitting in front of the boob tube, but
watching TV programming is surprisingly draining.
"As TV is a series of images and sounds, the
brain is continuously reorienting. It's like a tax
on the brain."
Combine
too much television with insufficient sleep and
lousy nutrition, Hardwicke says, and "you've
got the recipe for problems in school." Sadly,
an entire generation -- not just a few isolated
cases, or even a small sub-culture -- is being
raised this way.
Whatever
the beneficial impact of pre-K on children, suggests
Hardwicke, the most powerful impact may be the
wrong-headed expectations it creates in the parents. Says
she: "Parents bring their children into
the world not just to give them shelter, food and
clothing. They bring them into the world to provide
for their upbringing. The state is not responsible
for the children -- the parents are. But universal
pre-K will lead to the idea that the state is
responsible, not the parent. By allowing the parent to abdicate responsibility of early
education, you’re not enabling them to create
structure in the home where expectations are clearly
defined and good routines are established clearly in
life."
The Kaine administration
estimates that it would cost about $300 million a
year to make pre-K universally available in
Virginia. That's one option for the money. But we
need to explore alternative uses. Hardwicke argues
the funds would
be better spent on improving children's nutrition --
or even educating the parents.
Says
Hardwicke: "Take those
monies and spend them on educating parents so they
understand brain development and the critical nature
of the early years. Teach them they need to take
responsibility for their child's development. Just
think of what you could accomplish if you could get
parents to provide good nutrition, a good night's
sleep, books at home, no TV, and Lincoln Logs."
-- April
2, 2007
|