Pre-School Is Over-Hyped


KIPP Program Proves that  Pre-K is Not Best Use of Funds


The vast increases in test scores of students through KIPP program is evidence that the child can reach his full intellectual potential  without Pre-K. These colossal increases in test scores have occurred with students in 5th through 8th grade in high poverty schools with students without the benefit of Pre-K.  Since the  following types of  improvement have been made after 5th grade in high poverty schools,  then it is a myth that missing pre-K endangers the child's ability to reach his full capabilities.  KIPP stands for Knowledge is Power Program. 


Wouldn't it then make more sense to take the money we have and invest it at these grade levels in programs such as KIPP  when the child's ability is fully developed rather than in Pre-K  which would have no benefit to these older students and would leave them behind forever.  


 "At an annual cost of 8,000 per child, according to  the National education Association (2001 figures), preschool puts a massive strain on state budgets.  Financing two additional grades undermines opportunities to increase salaries and hire new teachers – a grim prospect for a workforce that reports being underpaid and overworked. Trading Sippy Cups for School Desks by Darcy Olsen, Aug. 14, 01 Cato Institute


Numerous KIPP schools have published results such as the following: Students on average are at the 28th percentile in reading and math on national standardized tests when they enter KIPP.   


The first five KIPP schools in the country, including Schaeffler's KIPP DC: KEY Academy, show students rising to the 74th percentile by the end of eighth grade, Schaeffler's first class of D.C. students, all black and 84 percent from low-income households, had average math scores that went from the 34th percentile when the students entered fifth grade in 2001 to the 92nd percentile when they completed eighth grade last year, and were the highest in the city last year at the school, now run by Schaeffler's successor, Sarah Hayes. See this link on Washington Post for the KIPP success stories. "High Scores Fail to Clear Obstacles to KIPP Growth"   by Jay Mathews


Can Science Justify Preschool?


Evidently California didn't think so. California Proposition 82 establishing free statewide universal preschool for every 4 year-old in the state was rejected by 60.9% June 6, 06.  The ballot measure failed in all but two counties despite months of multimillion dollar campaigning by Hollywood activist.


Consider the following information in excerpts from various articles and studies:


"Studies show that children who started kindergarten before age 5 ˝ ‘are far more likely;' to flunk a grade, need special tutoring and emotional counseling, be socially ill at ease and later be diagnosed as learning disabled." James Uphoff, professor of education, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, cited, p. 53, "The kindergarten wars," pp 53-54, U.S. News & World Report, April 10, 1989 1

Those pushing these Pre-K programs claim that for each dollar spent on the programs, as much as $12.90 to $16.00 would be recouped in reduced crime and welfare rates and increased future incomes of these students.


However none of the half dozen programs that have been cited for astounding results in educating children have been replicated.    The two most commonly referenced  preschool research studies, the Perry Preschool Program (1960’s) and the Abecedarian Early Childhood Intervention project (1972), focused not just on educating high-risk, low-income children, but also provided medical and nutritional care, home visits by teachers, and a teacher-child ratio as low as three to one.   In addition these programs were small scale, with small groups of children, they were closely monitored, and the teachers employed were highly paid and very well qualified.  For those same services to be provided today, it would cost as much as $42,000 per child


Head Start does not achieve educational improvement.  It is a "well-documented conclusion of the Department of Health and Human Services, which in 1985 published a review of ALL  existing research on the effect of Head Start  that, 'in the long run, cognitive and socioemotional test scores of former Head Start students do not remain superior to those of disadvantaged students who did not attend Head Start.  2


In 1969, the Westinghouse Learning Corporation found no difference in the behavior and educational achievement between Head Start and other underclass children. 3


Sixteen years later, the CRS Synthesis Project study, commissioned by HHS, came to the same conclusion. Although children showed "immediate gains," by the second grade "there are no educationally meaningful differences." 4


In France and Spain, more than 90% of 3-and 4-year olds attend state preschools, yet on international reading tests, U.S. 4th graders significantly outscore their counterparts in these and most other European countries.  5


In 2000, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) was conducted, which tested children from 32 nations in the areas of reading literacy, mathematics, and science. The results showed that children who have to start school at a very young age did not consistently do better than those who can start later.  6


 A similar assessment, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), revealed comparable results.  The country of Finland was a standout in both of these international assessments, ranking near or at the top in all tested subjects. These impressive results were achieved despite the fact that school attendance in Finland is not compulsory until age 7, later than almost any other European country. 7


Two of the lower scoring countries in PISA were Sweden and Greece, which both emphasize early education. Sweden has some of the most comprehensive childcare in Europe, with the vast majority of children ages 1-12 having a place in a publicly funded child-care center. Even with this emphasis, however, Sweden ranked among the average countries in the PISA test, and Greece was among the five worst nations in all three subject areas 8


1. Taken from Preschool School: Proceed with caution:  by David W. Kirkpatrick June 1, 06

2. The Schools We Need by Ed. D. Hirsch, Jr. p. 45. Also at this link:


4. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. "Dead Start," Free Market, January 1991, p. 2

5. Trading Sippy Cups for School Desks by Darcy Olsen, Aug. 14, 01 Cato Institute

6.  2000 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)

7.  2000 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Benchmarking Report Third International Mathematics and Science Study: 1999 - Eighth Grade (TIMSS).

8. Benchmarking Report Third International Mathematics and Science Study: 1999 - Eighth Grade (TIMSS).


Rand's Preschool Cost Benefits Study 'Blatantly Overstated and Incorrect'


Two economics professors from San Jose State University analyzed a Rand Corporation preschool cost study and concluded that Rand's claim of benefits amounting to $2.62 for each dollar California taxpayers contributed were based on selective data and unverified assumptions that skewed results. Consequently, Rand "overestimates the upsides and dramatically underestimates the downsides" of universal preschool as well as California's Proposition 82 that supports government-run preschool.


Using Rand data and methodology, the professors said "it is easy to demonstrate that universal preschool generates losses of 25 to 30 cents for every dollar spent."


San Jose State University economics professor Christopher Cardiff and assistant economics professor Edward Stringham coauthored the analysis of the Rand study. Cardiff's and Stringham's findings were published May 2006 in Is Universal Preschool Beneficial?...


In their analysis they "found the Rand study fails to pass even the basic benchmarks of what can be considered a reasonable economic analysis." They further noted, "If the RAND study was submitted in our San Jose State University classrooms, it would get an 'F'.


Link to lengthy  entire article:


Who are the initiators and supporters of Preschool


As Arkansans are hammered with propaganda and coercions to adopt preschool programs, they need to remember the agenda of some very influential politicians who have made it a lifetime project to incorporate their values into our children.


Government run early daycare is not new. All communist and socialist states have tried it in the past.


President Clinton's top advisors advocated a national day care system costing as much as $100 billion anuallly.  These daycare centers would be "schools of the 21st century.    Zigler, a participant in Hillary's staged conference on the daycare crisis  in 1997,  wants daycare centers reconstituted as "schools of the 21st century" and "family resource centers." He wants daycare to extend as long as the workdays of mothers and fathers, before- and after-school care, and summer care for children up to age 12.  Another participant in Hillary's conference who runs a daycare organizing roup, said, "As long as we are promoting an economic system where two parents or single parents work, it is the responsibility of the federal government" to promote affordable and accessible daycare."  Feminist View of Motherhood, Marriage, and Career


Hillary Clinton lauded the French system of child care for two and three year olds, many in full-day programs and for children whose others don't even work.  "Issued Divides Parties", Times Record, For Smith by John T. Anderson Nov 24, 02


According to a report from the non-partisan Public Agenda, more than seven in 10 parents with children 5 or under say they should be responsible for paying the costs of caring for their own children; only 24% say other taxpayers should help pay the costs. Even a majority of parents earning less than $25,000 a year believe that they, not their neighbors, should be responsible for the costs of raising their children.  "Preschool is overhyped" by David Salisbury,  2002, Cato, Institute

The push for these programs doesn't come from parents, but rather from politicians, who prey on the weaknesses of parents who are often strapped financially. Pushing universal preschool may be good for politicians, but it is not good for children, nor does it help build a social structure of independent, healthy families. Instead of trying to "help" parents by offering "free" preschool, politicians need to adjust current policies so that parents and extended family members can spend more time with their children, not less. Providing non-discriminatory assistance through tax cuts would help all parents, whether or not they choose at-home parental care, preschool or a combination of both for their children. "Preschool is overhyped" by David Salisbury,  2002, Cato, Institute

What is the Goal of  Preschool Advocates?


Certainly not all advocates of preschool subscribe to the following goals. However,  many of them have been manipulated through the propaganda in the media and the junk science studies and have not grasped where the slippery slope will end. 


As is evidenced in the two quotes above, preschool advocates  is preschool that  begins with pregnancy and  to extend as long as the workdays of mothers and fathers, before- and after-school care, and summer care for children up to age 12.  If that sounds far fetched  to some Arkansans, note the next two items:

A superintendent from a school  district in Paragould, Arkansas, had received so much attention for their innovative programs that the superintendent of the school was privileged to travel to Washington to address the chief of staff for domestic policy under the Clinton administration.  This is the message the paper reported that the superintendent was going to tell them in Washington. “Schools can no longer wait until a child is five years old to begin the educational process.  The schools must be there for the EXPECTANT PARENTS to provide information and support, and must then provide a safe and healthy environment for the newborns and preschoolers to give all children an equal start in school.”  White House mission slated" by Stan Gray, Jonesboro Sun August 1, 1995


 In 1997 an article in the newspaper reported  that  forty-five Arkansas  families had been selected to test an Early Head Start program.  This article reported that the  new program focuses on the fetus, infant toddler, and parent, and provides nurturing meals, health care, parenting skills, and day care.  Children will spend 35 hours a week for the next five years at selected centers.  Pregnant women will also be enrolled in the Early Head Start program.  The amount for each child would have amounted to about $40 thousand invested in the child before he ever started to school.  This particular program was being duplicated across the nation.  This is the model toward  which they are working,  proving this administration is trying to get more children at the earliest possible age away from their parents and into the hands of  the government.  (Could have as much as 40 thousand invested before child starts to school.)


In 2001 the District of Columbia even contemplated a bill which would have required a child to be enrolled in some type of school setting if the child turns 3 on or before December 31. Thus, even some 2 year olds would have been subject to DC's compulsory attendance law.  Note the above instance in Arkansas where school supervision began in pregnancy.  Mandatory Kiindergarten Is Unnecessary  by Jann Flury


In Massachusetts a bill unanimously passed both legislative houses in August, 06  that would create school programs for all children beginning at age 2 until kindergarten.  It would be law now but Republican Governor Romney vetoed the bill.



Pre-School Manual Advocates Homosexuality and Witchcraft


One method for accomplishing this mission is a Head Start teacher’s manual being used in Little Rock,, and across the state and nation for pre-schoolers. Besides including many methods to help children see homosexuality as normal, this text encourages children to think of witches as good instead of bad. The teacher is instructed to tell the children, "What I know is that the real women we call witches weren't bad. They really helped people. " The teacher is then instructed to set up a witch-healer table, where the children make their own potions, and do witch chants. The title of this manual is Anti Bias Curriculum.


Quote from Article by Family Council entitled "The Bias of Anti-Bias" in November 1995.  The book is more popular today than then.


"Family Council has done an in-depth analysis of ABC Tools.  This curriculum was found in a Hoxie  Elementary School classroom a few months ago.  It was promptly removed by the principal when parents voiced  their disapproval.


 "The main purpose of ABC Tools is values clarification.  “It is values based: Differences are good;  oppressive ideas and behavior are not.”  The heart of the ABC Tools is “ social change.”2   Those who have  developed the program realize that “ it may meet with resistance.”  Its emphasis is on values rather than basic skills.   This curriculum is moving into the arena of values and beliefs once controlled and developed by parents.


ABC Tools is being used in Arkansas. It is most widely promoted on the preschool level.  Head Start, a  federally funded program created to provide children from age 3-5 with skills that prepare them for elementary  school, uses the curriculum.  According to one source Head Start is federally mandated to use ABC Tools, but others  say ABC Tools is just strongly recommended.  There are 979 Head Start programs in the Pulaski County area alone,  and hundreds more