<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a>
</div>
<div class="">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1">
<div class="">February 14, 2013</div>
<h1>When Families Fail</h1>
<h6 class="">By
<span>
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/davidbrooks/index.html" rel="author" title="More Articles by DAVID BROOKS"><span>DAVID BROOKS</span></a></span></h6>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>
Today millions of American children grow up in homes where they don’t
learn the skills they need to succeed in life. Their vocabularies are
tiny. They can’t regulate their emotions. When they get to kindergarten
they’ve never been read a book, so they don’t know the difference
between the front cover and the back cover. </p>
<p>
But, starting a few decades ago, we learned that preschool intervention
programs could help. The efforts were small and expensive, but early
childhood programs like the Perry and Abecedarian projects made big
differences in kids’ lives. The success of these programs set off a lot
of rhapsodic writing, including by me, about the importance of early
childhood education. If government could step in and provide quality
preschool, then we could reduce poverty and increase social mobility.
</p>
<p>
But this problem, like most social problems, is hard. The big federal
early childhood program, Head Start, has been chugging along since 1965,
and the outcomes are dismal. Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings
Institution summarizes the findings of the most rigorous research:
“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.” </p>
<p>
Fortunately, that is not the end of the story. Over the past several
years, there’s been a flurry of activity, as states and private groups
put together better early childhood programs. In these programs, the
teachers are better trained. There are more rigorous performance
standards. The curriculum is better matched to the one the children will
find when they enter kindergarten. </p>
<p>
These state programs, in places like Oklahoma, Georgia and New Jersey,
have not been studied as rigorously as Head Start. There are huge
quality differences between different facilities in the same state or
the same town. The best experts avoid sweeping conclusions. Nonetheless,
there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that these state programs can make
at least an incremental difference in preparing children for school and
in getting parents to be more engaged in their kids’ education. </p>
<p>
These programs do not perform miracles, but incremental improvements add
up year by year and produce significantly better lives. </p>
<p>
Enter President Obama. This week he announced the most ambitious early
childhood education expansion in decades. Early Thursday morning, early
education advocates were sending each other ecstatic e-mails. They were
stunned by the scope of what Obama is proposing. </p>
<p>
But, on this subject, it’s best to be hardheaded. So I spent Wednesday
and Thursday talking with experts and administration officials, trying
to be skeptical. Does the president’s plan merely expand the failing
federal effort or does it focus on quality and reform? Is the president
trying to organize a bloated centralized program or is he trying to be a
catalyst for local experimentation? </p>
<p>
So far the news is very good. Obama is trying to significantly increase
the number of kids with access to early education. The White House will
come up with a dedicated revenue stream that will fund early education
projects without adding to the deficit. These federal dollars will be
used to match state spending, giving states, many of whom want to move
aggressively, further incentive to expand and create programs. </p>
<p>
But Washington’s main role will be to measure outcomes, not determine
the way states design their operations. Washington will insist that
states establish good assessment tools. They will insist that pre-K
efforts align with the K-12 system. But beyond that, states will have a
lot of latitude. </p>
<p>
Should early education centers be integrated with K-12 school buildings
or not? Should the early childhood teachers be unionized or certified?
Obama officials say they want to leave those sorts of questions up to
state experimentation. “I’m just about building quality,” Education
Secretary Arne Duncan told me. The goal is to make the federal oversight
as simple as possible. </p>
<p>
That’s crucial. There’s still a lot we don’t know about how to educate
children that young. The essential thing is to build systems that can
measure progress, learn and adapt to local circumstances. Over time,
many children will migrate from Head Start into state programs. </p>
<p>
This is rude to say, but here’s what this is about: Millions of parents
don’t have the means, the skill or, in some cases, the interest in
building their children’s future. Early childhood education is about
building structures so both parents and children learn practical life
skills. It’s about getting kids from disorganized homes into rooms with
kids from organized homes so good habits will rub off. It’s about
instilling achievement values where they are absent. </p>
<p>
President Obama has taken on a big challenge in a realistic and
ambitious way. If Republicans really believe in opportunity and local
control, they will get on board. </p>
<div class="">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br><br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br></div>