Current and Upcoming Legislative Issues

Alabama Policy Institute

 

On February 6, 2001, Governor Siegelman announced his plans to "expand early learning programs" in Alabama. He asked for public support in expanding eight sites, to forty-three. In light of proration, many thought the governor had abandoned his desire for pre-K in Alabama, but at a Birmingham Kiwanis Club Breakfast on April 17, Governor Siegelman unveiled his "Kidstuff" program, proving that pre-K was still alive in Alabama.

Kidstuff is the name for the Governor's pre-K effort. Developed through the Governor's Early Learning Commission, it is comprised of twelve members of Alabama's business community. Kidstuff is modeled after North Carolina's pre-K program, "Smart Start," implemented under former North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt. Siegelman's, April 17 press release states, "Kidstuff is designed to help all of Alabama's children ages zero to five enter school healthy and ready to succeed. The program will work to increase early learning opportunities, improve child care and health care for Alabama's children, increase parenting programs and improve public awareness of the importance of quality early learning opportunities." Most recently, the governor announced on June 13, the opening of thirteen new early learning centers in twelve Alabama counties. He also stated in the release that, "For every dollar invested in early learning, ten dollars will be saved in social costs, in such areas as teen pregnancies, school dropouts, welfare and crime." Other pre-K advocates claim seven dollars in savings.

If Alabama citizens are to support the pre-K effort, some questions about early learning and its claims should be addressed. For example, have other pre-K programs proven to be beneficial? Are the savings claims accurate or not? Is the Smart Start program of North Carolina successful? Does pre-K cause more harm than good? These are a few issues worth considering.

Many early intervention programs have been implemented, but the majority have not credibly demonstrated lasting academic benefits to children, nor social benefits to the community. The only state that has universal pre-K is Georgia. In the only study that has been done using a comparison group, Georgia State University researchers, Dr. Lorene C. Pilcher and Dr. Marsha Kaufman-McMurrain, found that by the end of the first grade, there was almost no statistically significant difference between children that attended Georgia's pre-K and those that did not.

The government-run Head Start program is another example of early intervention programs that have virtually no lasting benefits. The U.S. General Accounting Office, in April 1997, issued a report on Head Start that concluded, "This body of research is inadequate for use in drawing conclusions about the impact of the national program.." The report also states, "Later studies offered to support Head Start's impact do not provide enough evidence that Head Start is effective."

The claims of savings to society are based on the Perry Preschool Project, launched in Michigan in 1962, by Dr. David Weikart. This program served a severely disadvantaged segment of the population, not representative of the majority of children who attend pre-K. The seven dollars saved in social costs for every dollar spent on these programs is based on highly speculative information, but many public officials still view these numbers as reliable. The savings are attributed to a lower rate of crime committed by the preschool graduates, as adults. The researchers assume for every documented arrest of a study participant, that person committed four more crimes for which they were never arrested. The researchers also attempt to monetize the value of pain, fear and suffering. These estimations are based on national surveys, but it is simply conjecture to equate this group of disadvantaged children to a national sample of criminals.

It is also interesting that the Smart Start program of North Carolina has produced disappointing results. The Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill found the majority of Smart Start expenditures had no statistically significant effect on children's readiness to learn. The program has not been tested at a level above kindergarten, therefore it is unknown whether the program produces any long-term benefits. It should be of concern to Alabamians that Governor Siegelman's program is being modeled after one that has been unable to justify the funds spent on it.

A final question to be asked is, "Do pre-K programs cause more harm than good?" A study underway at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development found that increasing amounts of time spent in institutional day care may harm the mother-child relationship. The relationships have been shown to become less sensitive and affectionate. Another disturbing finding was a direct correlation between the amount of time spent in day care and traits like aggression, defiance and disobedience, regardless of quality of care, sex of the child or family socioeconomic status.

The lack of concrete evidence that early learning programs produce any long-term positive effects, nor save money in social costs, coupled with the negative behavior they are shown to produce, should cause us to reconsider whether pre-K will best serve Alabama's children.