In response to:

Pre-K Won't Help Kids

dahni Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 10:39 AM
Numbers from Early Childhood Education in Oakland, CA in the 60's and 70's too, I think, show the following: 1. Kids in the EC program learned to read and do arithmetic earlier and better than kids in the control groups. 2. By grade three there was no significant difference in group achievement. I did the statistical analysis again from original data and got the same outcome; i.e. initial improvement followed by leveling off to equal academic achievement.
dahni Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 10:45 AM
Another study compared several groups of students; each group being randomly formed. Then groups were labeled as 1. Gifted and Talented; 2. Normal; 3. Underachievers. Teachers were randomly selected, given a class, and told which type of class they had; i.e. 1,2 or 3.

In a few months their academic achievement was analyzed. Those labeled as Gifted achieved much higher than the other two groupings; Group 2 students scored much higher than Group 3 students.

Maybe schools could save money by training teachers to treat every student as Gifted and Talented?
President Obama ended his State of the Union speech on a warm and fuzzy note by calling for pre-K programs for almost all children. The best thing he could do for pre-kindergarten children is to make sure he doesn't hang trillions of dollars of debt around their necks, but that isn't the route he is taking.

Instead, Obama wants to provide government daycare for all preschoolers who live in households where the income is below approximately $47,100. He doesn't call it daycare or babysitting (which is a more accurate term); he calls it early childhood education.

Early childhood education means programs for...