By Tim Walsh
Albuquerque Teacher
Who wants the proposed state-funded, state-run preschool voucher plan to grow government? Why would legislators consider burdening the strained general fund with new recurring costs? Why add another state mandate?
The Pre-Kindergarten Initiative's deficiencies in pass-me-now, fill-me-in-later strategy for its passage make me wary.
The bill's purpose "is to support pre-kindergarten programs in communities throughout the state that will improve the development of children so they are ready to learn when they enter the educational system." That educational goal is very weak.
The federal government created Head Start in 1964 as a preschool program "to raise student achievement both short and long term." This well-intentioned step was a wrong step. It cost taxpayers close to $50 billion over 40 years and research found that any short-term gains dissipated within a few academic years.
So, close to 20 million Head Start children experienced federal preschool and they received only an artificial start, I say that was a bad investment. And the bad example was emulated by the 44 states that have, since 1970, fashioned some sort of state-funded program.
The sounds-good, feels-good public policy has been based on rhetoric that programs will lower drop-out rates, decrease juvenile crime and help students be successful.
A National Institute for Early Education Research report last February debunked those notions, concluding that most states fail to provide quality education programs to their preschool children. The study recommended significant improvements in level of access, financial support and educational quality."
Advocates ought to focus on such improvements— up front— in the New Mexico proposal. As it stands now, access is restricted to selected communities, and financial support is uncertain beyond $9 million for two consecutive years. There is also some question about whether it has any educational goals, given Education Secretary Veronica Garcia's statement at a committee hearing that pre-K "is not an academic program."
Georgia, a perfect state model according to the National Institute, has a universal pre-kindergarten program which after 10 years and spending $1.15 billion to help 300,000 children, found test scores unchanged. Whoops, after all that salesmanship, the rhetoric was wrong again.
That pre-k also represents a pee-wee voucher scheme is another amazing aspect, since Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson and Lt. Gov. Diane Denish initiated and continue to drive it. The bill draft forthrightly states that "money in the fund budgeted to pay eligible providers that are not public schools shall be expended by warrant signed by the secretary of finance and administration on vouchers signed by the secretary of Children, Youth and Families."
Former Gov. Gary Johnson's bold reform, a statewide universal school voucher proposal, would have allowed all parents to select the academic environment for their school-aged children.
Richardson's bold reform, a limited pee-wee voucher system for preschool programs, would be run by the Children Youth and Families Department and Public Education Department. It is restricted to approximately 3,000 4-year-olds in selected communities while all eligible providers offer approved cookie-cutter curriculum, so some providers won't outshine others when assessed annually.
All previous school voucher proposals in New Mexico have been opposed by many different groups, but not this one. As a member of the anti-voucher Albuquerque Teachers Federation, I disagree with leadership's support for this babysitting scheme paid for with state money better spent on salary or insurance increases.
And that's for a limited, pilot project involving only 3,000 students. If expanded statewide, it has the potential to cost taxpayers an annual estimated minimum of $96 million. It also has the potential to soak up millions more in capital outlay funds to build mini-me facilities for a projected 44,000 preschool kids.
New Mexico cannot afford to venture down a road of financial uncertainty committed to a bad investment linked to munchkin school programs with no possible significant educational impact.
opinion 
E-mail Story
Print Friendly
