Full day kindergarten cannot offer lifetime superior achievement
To the editor,
To bolster their case for opposing all-day kindergarten, opponents have taken to citing the 2012 final report from the "Head Start Impact Study." This study was an evaluation of the continuing effects of Head Start (a preschool program) into the elementary-school years.
The study was not good news for Head Start. Grover J. Whitehurst, Director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institute wrote a clear, sad synopsis of the study on the Brookings blog: "There is no measurable advantage to children in elementary school of having participated in Head Start. Further, children attending Head Start remain far behind academically once they are in elementary school. Head Start does not improve the school readiness of children from low-income families."
The federal Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the program, shamefully tried to suppress the report. The evaluators displayed a level of desperation ill suited to serious science. With little foundation, they speculated their study might have overlooked "sleeper" benefits that could manifest in later life. (I guess we should take some solace that right and left America are finally in accord on a strategy. When the science goes against them, they seek to marginalize and deny it.)
Nonetheless, relying on this study to oppose full-day kindergarten is a stretch. It specifically evaluated the Head Start program not early education per se. In the Brookings essay, Dr. Whitehurst also cited several quality studies of preschool programs that have shown clear and measurable benefits well into the elementary-school years.
Even with demonstrated benefits, however, one should not expect miracles from any preschool program (or additional kindergarten time). These programs are not the chief drivers of academic achievement in the third grade. Second-grade achievements, personal study habits, attitude and the quality of the third-grade experience are more likely prime determinants.
Preschool programs can teach basic skills, study strategies, productive behaviors and instill confidence. The result should be that students exposed to good programs do better than students who are not. Exposure, however, can only take students so far. A stinky educational experience will still produce inferior results no matter how prepared students are to receive it. "Do better" may mean less stinky, but it is not a euphemism for well educated.
Full-time kindergarten cannot offer lifetime superior achievement. That is what a good education offers. However, if first grade can build upon an enhanced kindergarten experience — that is, if it can pick up where full-time kindergarten leaves off and push its own endpoint to be commensurate with the new, advanced beginning — the experience can lead to superior achievements down the road.
What, then, can an enhanced kindergarten experience offer if it is not a panacea? Those who advocate for full day over half-day kindergarten cite a litany of benefits and advantages.
Among the benefits they cite are:
— Greater increases in math knowledge and reading skills overall;
— Better language proficiency among at-risk students;
— Faster gains in literacy among minority students;
— More progress in closing grade-level gaps among students entering kindergarten below established norms;
— Enhanced development of personal learning behaviors such as independent learning, classroom participation, productive interaction among students as well as thoughtful consideration of the implications of new knowledge; and
— Cost savings from reductions in retention through the third grade.
Among the advantages they cite are:
— Forty to 50 percent more instruction time as well as more time for students to exercise their academic skills (mathematical and literary) in the classroom;
— Time for classroom enhancements such as group reading, mixed-ability groups and student-initiated activities;
— Reduced stress among students; and
— Widespread support in the community (especially among the parents of kindergarten-age children).
Robert Moran
Meredith
To bolster their case for opposing all-day kindergarten, opponents have taken to citing the 2012 final report from the "Head Start Impact Study." This study was an evaluation of the continuing effects of Head Start (a preschool program) into the elementary-school years.
The study was not good news for Head Start. Grover J. Whitehurst, Director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institute wrote a clear, sad synopsis of the study on the Brookings blog: "There is no measurable advantage to children in elementary school of having participated in Head Start. Further, children attending Head Start remain far behind academically once they are in elementary school. Head Start does not improve the school readiness of children from low-income families."
The federal Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the program, shamefully tried to suppress the report. The evaluators displayed a level of desperation ill suited to serious science. With little foundation, they speculated their study might have overlooked "sleeper" benefits that could manifest in later life. (I guess we should take some solace that right and left America are finally in accord on a strategy. When the science goes against them, they seek to marginalize and deny it.)
Nonetheless, relying on this study to oppose full-day kindergarten is a stretch. It specifically evaluated the Head Start program not early education per se. In the Brookings essay, Dr. Whitehurst also cited several quality studies of preschool programs that have shown clear and measurable benefits well into the elementary-school years.
Even with demonstrated benefits, however, one should not expect miracles from any preschool program (or additional kindergarten time). These programs are not the chief drivers of academic achievement in the third grade. Second-grade achievements, personal study habits, attitude and the quality of the third-grade experience are more likely prime determinants.
Preschool programs can teach basic skills, study strategies, productive behaviors and instill confidence. The result should be that students exposed to good programs do better than students who are not. Exposure, however, can only take students so far. A stinky educational experience will still produce inferior results no matter how prepared students are to receive it. "Do better" may mean less stinky, but it is not a euphemism for well educated.
Full-time kindergarten cannot offer lifetime superior achievement. That is what a good education offers. However, if first grade can build upon an enhanced kindergarten experience — that is, if it can pick up where full-time kindergarten leaves off and push its own endpoint to be commensurate with the new, advanced beginning — the experience can lead to superior achievements down the road.
What, then, can an enhanced kindergarten experience offer if it is not a panacea? Those who advocate for full day over half-day kindergarten cite a litany of benefits and advantages.
Among the benefits they cite are:
— Greater increases in math knowledge and reading skills overall;
— Better language proficiency among at-risk students;
— Faster gains in literacy among minority students;
— More progress in closing grade-level gaps among students entering kindergarten below established norms;
— Enhanced development of personal learning behaviors such as independent learning, classroom participation, productive interaction among students as well as thoughtful consideration of the implications of new knowledge; and
— Cost savings from reductions in retention through the third grade.
Among the advantages they cite are:
— Forty to 50 percent more instruction time as well as more time for students to exercise their academic skills (mathematical and literary) in the classroom;
— Time for classroom enhancements such as group reading, mixed-ability groups and student-initiated activities;
— Reduced stress among students; and
— Widespread support in the community (especially among the parents of kindergarten-age children).
Robert Moran
Meredith
Last Updated on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 02:37
Hits: 198
Scalia recognized that 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited
To the editor,
Everyone has their favorite court cases about gun rights. I'd like to add mine to the mix. Justice Anton Scalia is not my favorite justice but none could have said it better than he did in his opinion in the Heller vs. District of Columbia case in 2008; Pp. 54–56:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." .
The core of the ruling was that the DC law unduly limited the natural right of self-defense. No matter what state courts say, the Supremes rule.
James Veverka
Tilton
Everyone has their favorite court cases about gun rights. I'd like to add mine to the mix. Justice Anton Scalia is not my favorite justice but none could have said it better than he did in his opinion in the Heller vs. District of Columbia case in 2008; Pp. 54–56:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." .
The core of the ruling was that the DC law unduly limited the natural right of self-defense. No matter what state courts say, the Supremes rule.
James Veverka
Tilton
Last Updated on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 01:57
Hits: 443
Should name repeal of Stand Your Ground Law after Forest Gump
To the editor,
I received a call today from a friend from Franklin who started telling me about HB-135 and how the Democrats want to repeal the Stand Your Ground law.
When I first moved here I read a newspaper story about a policeman who was shot by a high school Rival he had stopped for a traffic violation, who was shot himself by a passerby that picked up the policeman's gun. Stand your ground protects everyone.
I asked my friend what this has to do with the Newtown shooting? He said nothing: the attorney general and the state police want it because of the Travon Martin shooting in Florida.
Really? The Democrats want to change the law that protects everyone from violent crime by taking away the ability to use deadly force when no other course of action is available in situations passersby may come upon, because of an incident in a state 1400 miles from here that has no witnesses and the person charged in the case hasn't even gone to trial.
So much for innocent until proven guilty. They should name the legislation the Forrest Gump Act. If you see someone getting car jacked, raped or robbed at gun point all you will be able to do is yell "Run Forrest Run".
James Edgar
Meredith
I received a call today from a friend from Franklin who started telling me about HB-135 and how the Democrats want to repeal the Stand Your Ground law.
When I first moved here I read a newspaper story about a policeman who was shot by a high school Rival he had stopped for a traffic violation, who was shot himself by a passerby that picked up the policeman's gun. Stand your ground protects everyone.
I asked my friend what this has to do with the Newtown shooting? He said nothing: the attorney general and the state police want it because of the Travon Martin shooting in Florida.
Really? The Democrats want to change the law that protects everyone from violent crime by taking away the ability to use deadly force when no other course of action is available in situations passersby may come upon, because of an incident in a state 1400 miles from here that has no witnesses and the person charged in the case hasn't even gone to trial.
So much for innocent until proven guilty. They should name the legislation the Forrest Gump Act. If you see someone getting car jacked, raped or robbed at gun point all you will be able to do is yell "Run Forrest Run".
James Edgar
Meredith
Last Updated on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 01:43
Hits: 48
Do not vote for Democrats or Republicans; vote for Libertarians
To the editor,
Yes, Bob Meade is correct. As anyone who is not part of their team can see, the executive branch of the current administration in Washington is out of control. But his January 22 column falls short of its potential because like so many others it recognizes the problem but has no clue to the solution.
Surely he knows a few letters (or a few thousand letters) or a few protests will not halt the Obama socialists gradual dismantling of the U.S. Constitution.
The solution is, has been, and will remain in the voting booth. Do NOT vote for Democrats.
That, however, is not to say that you should vote for Republicans. They are no better. Perhaps with their burgeoning militant theocracy they are even more immediately dangerous to our freedom.
The corrupt entrenched self-serving establishment is leading us to ruin.
If people would vote Libertarian that would get the attention of the crooks and despots as they are voted out of office.
David M. Zebuhr
Gilford
Yes, Bob Meade is correct. As anyone who is not part of their team can see, the executive branch of the current administration in Washington is out of control. But his January 22 column falls short of its potential because like so many others it recognizes the problem but has no clue to the solution.
Surely he knows a few letters (or a few thousand letters) or a few protests will not halt the Obama socialists gradual dismantling of the U.S. Constitution.
The solution is, has been, and will remain in the voting booth. Do NOT vote for Democrats.
That, however, is not to say that you should vote for Republicans. They are no better. Perhaps with their burgeoning militant theocracy they are even more immediately dangerous to our freedom.
The corrupt entrenched self-serving establishment is leading us to ruin.
If people would vote Libertarian that would get the attention of the crooks and despots as they are voted out of office.
David M. Zebuhr
Gilford
Last Updated on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 01:38
Hits: 133
We should not accept further Delphi-style facilitation in WRSD
To the editor,
"Diverse" and "nuance." You, editor Ed Engler, co-chair of Lakes Region Listens, are reported to have used those words in praise of Wednesday's "community conversation" about whether or not to implement all-day kindergarten in the Winnisquam Regional School District.
I would use these words: diversion and nonsensical. How else to describe the misapplication of Delphi-style group facilitation to a yes/no question? The agenda we were given at the beginning of the meeting clearly stated the topic for the evening: "Should the Winnisquam Regional School District begin offering 5-year-olds a full day kindergarten program?" This question is instantly recognizable as a warrant article voted down at last year's annual school district meeting. Yet here it was again, up for discussion at the behest of the school board. It wouldn't take a cynic to see this retreaded idea as an effort to divert attention away from the many real problems we face in this district.
The board and administration may have been pleased to read that we had a "healthy conversation," and "how nuanced the positions are, in terms of it not being a black or white issue." But this is utter nonsense. Diverse and nuanced opinions only matter when groups discuss open-ended questions, exploring a range of possible solutions to address a specific problem. But we had no problem statement; neither the board nor the administration had bothered to create one. At my table — with four public school employees and three "civilians," plus the facilitator — we began to create our own. But we couldn't know on what issue or issues we should focus. Without leadership providing guidance on the biggest challenges facing the district, we could only guess. All we knew for certain was that someone in a leadership position didn't like the answer on kindergarten we gave them last year.
An informal poll of Wednesday's participants revealed that no minds were changed. A vote on the issue before the meeting would have yielded the same result as a vote held after our diverse and nuanced conversations. Why should anyone have expected a different outcome? No relevant learning materials on the topic were available at the meeting, just a "fact sheet" that provided unhelpful nuggets such as the fact that 84 percent of public schools in southern states offer full day kindergarten. A fact, yes, but hardly relevant to whether we should do so in Winnisquam. It's no surprise that we came and went with our opinions intact.
We had been told that our school board would decide whether or not to bring this issue for another vote based on the Lakes Region Listens report of this meeting. Except — the board blinked. Less than 24 hours before the long-planned "community discussion," the board voted unanimously to withdraw support for the proposed warrant article. The reason given was apparently "economic." But what had really changed?
We can't know what was going on in the minds of board members (the meeting minutes dedicate far more space to the all-consuming chocolate milk crisis than to this $300,000 warrant article), but it is not difficult to believe that, after raising the issue publicly, some on the board didn't want to be put in the position of voting "no" after receiving the Lakes Region Listens report. Even a true believer in the cause of all-day kindergarten should see that this group facilitation approach was useful only as a shield, buffering the board from the direct voice of the people. The board could be reasonably certain that the report would favor all-day kindergarten, giving them an excuse for revisiting a decision we had made just 10 months before. That's what Delphi does.
And that's why we should not accept further Delphi-style facilitation in the Winnisquam district. We should expect our district leaders to assess and prioritize the challenges we face. We should demand that they create problem statements addressing our challenges, and then ask for direct community input in open meetings. At last year's district meeting I suggested a couple such problem statements, and I did so again in print and in e-mails to the board. If they don't believe, as I do, that low proficiency in reading by too many of our middle school children is an issue we should discuss, or that having our high school ranked 63 out of 82 schools in math is a problem we could brainstorm, they could just look to the recent survey of high school students, teachers, and parents (posted on the high school web site) to find plenty of other challenges that we must address if we hope to improve our schools.
The road to solutions starts with creating a problem statement that focuses on a definable issue. It must be unambiguous and devoid of assumptions. It can't be a simple yes / no question about a specific program. That first step is the responsibility of the leadership team we've hired or voted into office. Then, if they want diverse and nuanced opinions that matter, they need to take the next step down that road: they need to listen — directly, in open session — to a variety of opinions. We don't need outside facilitation. We need leadership.
Ken Gorrell
Northfield
"Diverse" and "nuance." You, editor Ed Engler, co-chair of Lakes Region Listens, are reported to have used those words in praise of Wednesday's "community conversation" about whether or not to implement all-day kindergarten in the Winnisquam Regional School District.
I would use these words: diversion and nonsensical. How else to describe the misapplication of Delphi-style group facilitation to a yes/no question? The agenda we were given at the beginning of the meeting clearly stated the topic for the evening: "Should the Winnisquam Regional School District begin offering 5-year-olds a full day kindergarten program?" This question is instantly recognizable as a warrant article voted down at last year's annual school district meeting. Yet here it was again, up for discussion at the behest of the school board. It wouldn't take a cynic to see this retreaded idea as an effort to divert attention away from the many real problems we face in this district.
The board and administration may have been pleased to read that we had a "healthy conversation," and "how nuanced the positions are, in terms of it not being a black or white issue." But this is utter nonsense. Diverse and nuanced opinions only matter when groups discuss open-ended questions, exploring a range of possible solutions to address a specific problem. But we had no problem statement; neither the board nor the administration had bothered to create one. At my table — with four public school employees and three "civilians," plus the facilitator — we began to create our own. But we couldn't know on what issue or issues we should focus. Without leadership providing guidance on the biggest challenges facing the district, we could only guess. All we knew for certain was that someone in a leadership position didn't like the answer on kindergarten we gave them last year.
An informal poll of Wednesday's participants revealed that no minds were changed. A vote on the issue before the meeting would have yielded the same result as a vote held after our diverse and nuanced conversations. Why should anyone have expected a different outcome? No relevant learning materials on the topic were available at the meeting, just a "fact sheet" that provided unhelpful nuggets such as the fact that 84 percent of public schools in southern states offer full day kindergarten. A fact, yes, but hardly relevant to whether we should do so in Winnisquam. It's no surprise that we came and went with our opinions intact.
We had been told that our school board would decide whether or not to bring this issue for another vote based on the Lakes Region Listens report of this meeting. Except — the board blinked. Less than 24 hours before the long-planned "community discussion," the board voted unanimously to withdraw support for the proposed warrant article. The reason given was apparently "economic." But what had really changed?
We can't know what was going on in the minds of board members (the meeting minutes dedicate far more space to the all-consuming chocolate milk crisis than to this $300,000 warrant article), but it is not difficult to believe that, after raising the issue publicly, some on the board didn't want to be put in the position of voting "no" after receiving the Lakes Region Listens report. Even a true believer in the cause of all-day kindergarten should see that this group facilitation approach was useful only as a shield, buffering the board from the direct voice of the people. The board could be reasonably certain that the report would favor all-day kindergarten, giving them an excuse for revisiting a decision we had made just 10 months before. That's what Delphi does.
And that's why we should not accept further Delphi-style facilitation in the Winnisquam district. We should expect our district leaders to assess and prioritize the challenges we face. We should demand that they create problem statements addressing our challenges, and then ask for direct community input in open meetings. At last year's district meeting I suggested a couple such problem statements, and I did so again in print and in e-mails to the board. If they don't believe, as I do, that low proficiency in reading by too many of our middle school children is an issue we should discuss, or that having our high school ranked 63 out of 82 schools in math is a problem we could brainstorm, they could just look to the recent survey of high school students, teachers, and parents (posted on the high school web site) to find plenty of other challenges that we must address if we hope to improve our schools.
The road to solutions starts with creating a problem statement that focuses on a definable issue. It must be unambiguous and devoid of assumptions. It can't be a simple yes / no question about a specific program. That first step is the responsibility of the leadership team we've hired or voted into office. Then, if they want diverse and nuanced opinions that matter, they need to take the next step down that road: they need to listen — directly, in open session — to a variety of opinions. We don't need outside facilitation. We need leadership.
Ken Gorrell
Northfield
Last Updated on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 01:31
Hits: 161
More Articles...
