The Need for Socioeconomic Balance in PreK Classrooms
Barack Obama spoke of his support for investing in early childhood education during the last presidential debate, at a campaign moment when he was being very cautious: a clear sign that public opinion about early childhood education’s value is solidified. But the actual investment plan and implementation is less established, as evidenced in David Wilson’s article, "When Worlds Collide: Universal preK brings new challenges for public elementary schools" (HEL, November/December 2008). While policymakers are willing to invest in universal preK, they struggle with optimal implementation.

Connecticut wrestles with its 1997 School Readiness Initiative. Funded in the wake of the Sheff vs. O’Neil desegregation lawsuit, the state funded preschool for the poorest cities. It was one remedy for educational inequality. State appropriations now top $100 million per year, yet Connecticut is still challenged in designing an comprehensive early childhood system. And the funding structure of the Readiness program has resulted in preschools that are primarily racially and economically isolated.

Two designs are emerging nationally as potential early childhood delivery systems. One is building a new system that is comprehensive, with child and family services. The other is a public school model like those in Boston, Oklahoma, and Yonkers. Sometimes the two are combined.

Connecticut’s School Readiness initiative strives for the comprehensive model. Eleven years later, it is far from complete. There is no consensus on a workforce development plan, teacher qualifications, required human services, curriculum, or program quality measures. The state has spent millions of dollars on systems planning with the hope that a comprehensive system would result in better outcomes for children.

Connecticut could have chosen a public school model with existing public schools as the delivery system. Facilities exist, teacher and leader qualifications are defined, and schools have capacity for curriculum development. Schools also have social workers, psychologists, and special educators.

But public schools have problems too. Wilson quotes Boston’s early childhood director, Jason Sachs, describing public schools as “gloriously unprepared to serve preschoolers.” They lack early childhood expertise. Public school preschools suffer from an overemphasis on academic goals and an under-emphasis on intellectual and social goals, as Lillian Katz suggests. Public schools are not as focused and skilled at building family relationships. Ellen Frede’s proposal to change the structure of elementary schools to include prek—third grade schools would help mitigate some of these challenges.

One community using a successful public school model with economically integrated enrollment is West Hartford, CT. In 2007, the school district reported that in their two public school classrooms, the vocabulary achievement gap closed by 42 percent. These findings mirror other findings about the benefits of the economically integrated preschools. Teachers in the public schools like Jenny Dorl report important social and emotional readiness goals met as well.

Focusing programs on only low-income students, as Bruce Fuller suggests, makes economic integration very unlikely. West Hartford’s integrated program is unusual. The vast majority of Connecticut’s School Readiness classrooms target primarily low-income families. This is ironic given that the impetus for state funding of preschool was as a remedy for racially and economically isolated education. Socioeconomic integration is a quality component that affects child outcomes and it is reasonable to believe that public support would expand if more families received the entitlement.

Boston built a preschool system onto their public schools, then backtracked to have schools ready, teachers ready and leaders ready—before they could have kids ready for kindergarten. Boston’s approach maximized student access to preschool from the outset, and then built on and improved an existing system.

Connecticut’s School Readiness program serves 9,000 children currently, but eleven years of planning a new comprehensive system is ongoing. Expanding expenditures for planning have no end in sight, while an estimated 9,000 low-income three- and four-year-olds are still in need of preschool placement, according to the Connecticut State Board of Education. (2006)

Evidence supports the premise that preschool attendance positively affects later school and life success. Yet, one quarter of three- and four-year-olds in the U.S. do not have access to preschool, according to the 2007 NIEER State of Preschool Report. As states and cities continue to expand preschool access, questions of how to build the system need to take into consideration the need for socioeconomic balance and the need to assure the highest quality programs, while also addressing the emergency created by large numbers of children without access to any preschool.


About the Author: Rep. Beth Bye, a former preschool program director, currently represents West Hartford, Avon and Farmington in the Connecticut state legislature.

Comments:

Nov 20, 2008 02:57 PM Rep. Bye's comments are absolutely on target. And many, if not most, of the state-supported programs outside the public schools are still of low or mediocre quality. Better to incorporate the preschool programs into the schools and train qualified educators to serve them than to have to struggle forever building community capacity, trying to upgrade the skills of poorly compensated private-sector providers, and ensuring adequate state oversight of this complex service industry that is so vital to providing disadvantaged children with "equality at the starting gate."

– Dianne Kaplan deVries

May 22, 2009 04:14 AM I concur with your observation that socioeconomic balance is necessary in PreK classrooms. I also think it is a big issue in regular schools as governments have been spending more and more money to try and improve the outcomes of schools with high proportions of students from poorer backgrounds with very limited success. This outcome is not surprising as the more that these schools become "residualised" the more difficult the task of turning them around becomes. Indeed, experience would suggest that without changing the mix of students the task is too difficult. And whilst the goal of changing the student mix in these schools might seem like a chicken and egg problem “how can the mix change if the school is not successful, the school is unlikely to become successful with the current student mix" just as the residualisation is a result of incremental changes over several years, so the change of student mix will need to be seen as a longer-term incremental process.

As academic success is tied so closely to socio-economic background, I suggest that reform action and funding should became more explicitly focused on strategies to improve the student mix within the more “ghettoised" schools rather than simply being primarily focused on trying to lift the outcomes of a schools that are already residualised. Changing the student mix is an important means for making in-roads into improving outcomes for all students in these schools. It will not happen by accident or under the current policy and funding strategies. That is, I believe we need to devise and implement strategies explicitly designed to change the student mix and thereby increase the proportion of students from more socially advantaged backgrounds in these schools. Working with “mixed ability groups" that are more representative of the range of socio economic backgrounds in an area rather than with mixed ability groups drawn almost exclusively from disadvantaged backgrounds is likely to impact on student expectations, motivation, engagement, effort and success.

Within this new policy focus:
a) improving the socio economic mix of residualised schools would become a goal for the system and designated schools
b) some minimum/aspirational socio economic mix proportion targets for the system and designated schools could be identified based on research evidence and local circumstances
c) some incentive and reward funding for schools would be targeted to funding strategies explicitly designed to change designated schools socioeconomic mix
d) strategies explicitly designed to attract more middle and upper socio-economic background students would need to be developed and funded and monitored
e)monitoring and reporting on the "student mix" would be a means for determining the effectiveness of strategies although publishing such data locally until the mix was “reasonable" would not be advised as this could deter prospective students/families.

Although I haven't given much thought to strategies, I envisage that possible strategies would look at:
a) curriculum offerings that would be attractive to students/families with higher education or white collar job aspirations. (e.g. Applied practical studies that lead to pathways in blue-collar industries would need to be supplemented with applied and other studies that provide pathways into higher education and/or white collar jobs design, IT, accounting, economics, arts administration, architecture, hotel management, advertising, project management)
b) program specialisations (e.g. sporting specialisation, artistic specialisation, business specialisation and IT/multi-media specialisation)
c) scholarships
d) off-campus enriching experiences “ overseas or to an "outward bound" program location
e) system initiated and supported partnerships between particular residualised schools and industry and tertiary education providers that convey special privileges on students in the partnership schools
f) specially funded tutoring and holiday/summer school programs
g) system initiated and supported partnerships between residualised schools and (govt, Catholic and "private") schools with students from middle and high socioeconomic backgrounds in which special activities and programs are designed and delivered to "blended" student population groups
h) "support your local school" public forums and advertising campaigns that make explicit reference to the goal of making schools more representative of the households in the community and take the high moral ground on the benefits of social and cultural diversity, inclusiveness and community mix being represented in the school student mix.
i) offers of free bussing for students from mid and upper socio economic areas willing to attend schools in danger of being residualised

This suggestion is not meant to replace efforts to turnaround residualised schools but to supplement the strategies already being adopted. It is also a policy that enables action to be to avoid a school becoming residualised.

Peter

– peter cole

Dec 28, 2009 04:40 AM I am compelled to respond at this time because I am a long time early childhood educator in the Boston Public Schools. I must begin by saying Boston has a long and varied history of serving young children 3, 4, and 5 years of age. The inconsistency of quality services for young children has hinged on and is a direct result of district administrators policies and practices often in response to the political climate. What I have experienced over the years is with each new well intended regime the priorities change without consideration of previous initiatives and continuous improvement strategies often to the determent of young children specifically. It is not soley the ineffective work of front line teachers and school leaders who do the damage. Certainly there are some in both public and community organizations but they do not own the problems of creating effective early childhood systems alone. For example in Boston like many other urban districts student assignments are determined centrally. Further Boston city history demonstrates the erosion of a comprehensive preschool system during each of the many economic down turns of the past thirty years.

It is promising that we have a President who supports the closing of the achievement gap and the need to educate young children but what happens when the nations attention moves to middle or high school again? Or what happens when district level administrators decide Principals should learn about fourth grade writing or K-5 math to the exclusion of everything else?

I am inclined to believe Boston may be similar to West Hartford CT. on some level. I am inclined to believe that there were capable teachers and a school leader who committed to the success of young children. In Boston there are unique schools developed over twenty years ago that are ready for young children and committed to continuous improvement.

Lillian Katz talks about many aspects of the work required to create great learning environments for all children, teachers and leaders. It includes a set of beliefs with a clear vision that all district level members agree will guide them over time. She also eloquently speaks to the underlying issue of this discussion. I really believe that each of us must come to care about everyone else's children. We must come to see that the well-being of our own individual children is intimately linked to the well-being of all other people's children..... The good life for our own children can only be secured if it is also secured for all other people's children. But to worry about all other people's children is not just a practical or strategic matter; it is a moral and ethical one: to strive for the well-being of all other people's children is also right."

In other words every level of the educational process must be passionate about the success of all children. Every politician, parent, administrator, educator, citizen must believe- young children require a system that honors the work and provides the appropriate supports regardless of age, grade, gender, and the size of their pocketbook.

– Valerie Gumes

Submit your comment

:
:  will not be published
:
The opinions expressed here do not reflect the opinions of the Harvard Education Publishing Group or the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Harvard Education Publishing Group is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by guest bloggers.