The Nevada Democratic leadership has adopted as gospel a strange faith, rather like the politicians who pushed homesteading laws before the Dust Bowl. Their faith was that rain would follow the plow.
According to an AP story, Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday unveiled education plans for the upcoming legislative session. They call for early development programs for at-risk students and expansion of all-day kindergarten.
New Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick was quoted as saying: “Early education translates to a strong workforce, better jobs and a community we can all be proud of.”
How early education can translate into a strong workforce defies any semblance to logic, since most studies show any benefits of early education have completely dissipated by the fourth grade.
Rain doesn’t follow the plow and jobs don’t follow education. You can have the most educated populace on the planet, but, if entrepreneurs are saddled with excessive taxes and regulations, jobs will not sprout.
Of course, entrepreneurs can’t succeed without educated workers, but you must push both tracks and not load up on the education side — taxing businesses to fund it while they layoff current workers — and then wait a generation to see if your ideas flourish or create a Dust Bowl.
Elementary, Watson!
Tom, you are going to have to stop this line of thought, it makes to much sense and sense is something the “progressives” don’t understand!
So you are against all-day kindergarten for kids?
Conservatives reason, progressives feel.
I never said that, Petey.
Then what do you think of the proposal that children in Nevada have all-day kindergarten?
Open to discussion of cost/benefit.
The #1 paper on Google Scholar along with #’s 2, 3, 4, and who knows how many more because I stopped looking, says preschooling creates substantial long term benefits. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/145736?uid=3739656&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101643743697
Your blanket statement that preschool creates only temporary benefits appears to have substantial opposition, Thomas. As a matter of fact, I can’t readily find anyone that agrees with it, but I’ll bet Limbaugh and Hannity do.
Do you believe the benefit of all-day kindergarten to Nevada’s children is worth the cost?
I don’t know. Do you?
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/14/long-overdue-head-start-evaluation-shows-no-lasting-benefit-for-children/
I went to kindergarten, and so did my kids. I wouldn’t conceive of not sending them to kindergarten. How ’bout people on this board? Anyone here choose not to put their kids or grand kids in kindergarten?
RicRak says:
For the half of the children born with a legitimate father, the answer is possibly yes. For the half of the children born without a legitimate father, the answer is probably no.
Come on nyp, the question is not about kindergarten, yes or no, it is about all day kindergarten vs. half day. The kindergarten I and my kids went to was half day. Me, I like the full day of kindergarten, kids are more used to being gone all day in day care vs. the old days when the first time away from home was kindergarten. The half day was to get them used to being away from home before “real” school started. But as Thomas points out, there is a cost.
A good kindergarten program can get the kids going, my son was in one. A poor kindergarten is not effective and does little good, my daughter was in one. Interesting note is that the district my daughter was in was very well financed with lots of people and money spent, the one my son was in was in a poor small town.
I don’t see a lot of benefit for school based preschool other than for special ed or perhaps some lower income areas where the kids do not have a lot of stimulus to help them learn.
Judging from how Nyp turned out, if he went to kindergarten, I would view that as an argument against sending our kids to kindergarten.
“Choose” should be the operative word.
So you agree free public kindergarten should be available for all Nevada children whose parents choose to put them there.
OK.
So then you agree free public kindergarten should be available for all Nevada children whose parents choose to put them there.
OK.
I never said free.
Nor all-day.
Odd rationale, people choosing to spend other people’s money.
That is because Mr. Mitchell doesn’t believe in free public education at all.
We have a difference in view. I believe that all children deserve an equal chance in life. Mr. Mitchell does not.
Thanks, Thomas, for giving me the opportunity to expose the extreme bias of the Heritage Foundation. I was unable to find the first quote via Google, which causes me doubt that it is accurate. I did find the original paper though. Here’s a quote from it: “The study shows that providing access to Head Start led to improvements in the quality of the early childhood settings and programs children experienced. On nearly every measure of quality traditionally used in early childhood research, the Head Start group had more positive experiences than those in the control group” (from page 33 or XXV of the report) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/executive_summary_final.pdf
Sure doesn’t sound like the Heritage paper. Read the rest. You’ll find that it does not address the original statement you made. Nevertheless, the Heritage Foundation report is not accurate in the least. If all you read is from those you agree with, you’ll always have your views confirmed, regardless of their merit.
Here’s an idea, let the parents take care of their own young kids. Many don’t work anyway.
“In the long run, cognitive and socioemotional test scores of former Head Start students do not remain superior to those of disadvantaged children who did not attend Head Start.” ERIC Online
“However, these early effects rapidly dissipated in elementary school, with only a single impact remaining at the end of 3rd grade for children in each age cohort.”
“In summary, there were initial positive impacts from having access to Head Start, but by the end of 3rd grade there were very few impacts found for either cohort in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting practices. The few impacts that were found did not show a clear pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts for children.”
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/head_start_report.pdf
Fancy way of saying it had no real lasting overall effects. Another unpaid for (but fully “funded”) waste of effort and money.
You know,, climbing trees on Sundays in Boston MA is still illegal, I say a study must be “funded” and reports must be made on the effectiveness of this Very Necessary Law. We must determine if enacting this law nationwide is crucial to early development of our children. A multi-million dollar study and report are surely necessary to affirm and recommend this very necessary law. I am totally willing to conduct such a study and prepare the report.
C’mon silly laws travel in groups, let the kids enjoy their early lives.
“Odd rationale, people choosing to spend other people’s money.”
You’re the forgotten man, Mr. Mitchell.
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rbannis1/AIH19th/Sumner.Forgotten.html
“Thanks, Thomas, for giving me the opportunity to expose the extreme bias of the Heritage Foundation. I was unable to find the first quote via Google, which causes me doubt that it is accurate.”
Please see Page xxvi, paragraph 5 of the link you posted, Rincon.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “The lawmakers couldn’t estimate what it would cost to implement the programs. ‘We’re looking at those figures,’ [Senator] Denis said by telephone. ‘The important thing here, these are things that we need to do…We want to make sure we have the discussion,’ he said.”
When Nyp asked if Mr. Mitchell supported all day kindergarten, Mr. Mitchell replied, “Open to discussion of cost/benefit.”
When Nyp asked if the benefits of all day kindergarten were worth the cost, Mr. Mitchell replied that he didn’t know.
But when the majority leader of the state senate was asked about the cost of his party’s legislative agenda, he basically said he didn’t know and he didn’t care, because it was something were going to push thru regardless of cost.
Gives added significance to Mr. Mitchell’s statement about “people choosing to spend other people’s money.”
“Free public kindergarten”, nyp? What is free about it? Children aren’t range hatchlings, they have to be fed, clothed, protected, instructed, etc., what part of that is free? Are you recalling that when you were in kindergarten you, personally, did not have to pay? It’s like Obama said, “you didn’t build that”, someone else built the road and the building. Your thinking sounds like Harry Reid’s convoluted reasoning, only what you say today matters, there’s no connection to previous thought.
There’s apparently some truth on both sides. Wikipedia gives a fairly comprehensive and hopefully unbiased discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start_Program#Critical_studies_and_statements
According to the article, there have been at least 31 studies A greater number appear to be favorable, but one good question would be, is it showing good enough results to justify the costs?
Some of the studies may have been sloppy. The possibility that the Head Start advantage may fade with years was contested by some, who said, “One postulated reason for this effect is the fact that Head Start participants are significantly more likely than other children to attend lower-quality public schools, which can structurally undermine any advantage that Head Start would initially provide.”
Huh? You mean the idiots running the study didn’t match the groups they were comparing? This gives impetus to the idea that government studies are a waste of money. I’m sure there were major flaws in some of the favorable studies as well.
The bottom line for me is that if the impact isn’t robust enough to be obvious, spending the money may not be worth it. Kids in poverty need help, but improving the schools may be a better approach. I also continue to criticize the lopsided approach given to the subject by the Heritage Foundation. They wouldn’t know a balanced approach if they fell on it.
But without Heritage would you have looked?
Thanks, Milty, I’d forgotten about that. I just scanned it but will read it fully later today.
“Now who is the Forgotten Man? He is the simple, honest laborer, ready to earn his living by productive work. We pass him by because he is independent, self-supporting, and asks no favors. He does not appeal to the emotions or excite the sentiments. He only wants to make a contract and fulfill it, with respect on both sides and favor on neither side. He must get his living out of the capital of the country. The larger the capital is, the better living he can get. Every particle of capital which is wasted on the vicious, the idle, and the shiftless is so much taken from the capital available to reward the independent and productive laborer. But we stand with our backs to the independent and productive laborer all the time.”
The Brookings Institute had a largely negative analysis of the long term effectivenss of Head Start. Does Rincon want to criticize Brookings for their “lopsided approach” and inability to “know a balanced approach if they fell on it” too?
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2010/01/21-head-start-whitehurst
Education studies are bit like climate studies, it behooves the studiers to find that something must done.
Funny that people on this board keep talking about Head Start, while the Nevada Democrats’ proposal is about Kindergarten.
Those climate scientists are all frauds. It’s all a tremendous conspiracy.
The Nevada Dems’ proposal isn’t just about kindergarten. Their education priorities for this year’s legislative session include early development programs for at-risk students, expansion of all-day kindergarten, class size reduction, ending social promotion of students, and revamping the K-12 funding formula.
“Education studies are bit like climate studies, it behooves the studiers to find that something must done.”
And the something they do is ineffective, but they all feel good about themselves because they did something, even if it didn’t work.
How do people here feel about the proposals to end social promotion and to reduce class size?
It also includes pre-school for at-risk students.
Ending social promotion was the key to Florida education improvements, under some guy named (gasp) Bush.
Not clear how much ending social promotion improved education in Florida, but I’m inclined to support it.
It was also implemented in NYC by some guy named (gasp) Bloomberg.
Gee, imagine all the bullying issues that are gonna come up when we’ve got 12 year olds in first grade because they didn’t get their social promotions.
Gotta point there.
Of course the Brookings Institute is lopsided. It’s described as a Liberal think tank. From that, I assume until proven otherwise that they generally refuse to give credence to conservative solutions.
The discussion began with Thomas claiming that early education has no lasting benefits. Common sense tells us that teaching kids early is worthwhile. Otherwise, Mothers are wasting their time reading bedtime stories and should merely store their children in a box until they reach Kindergarden age. The question was whether early education in a setting outside the home is advantageous. My point was that dismissing the concept out of hand because of a lopsided summary of one study of Head Start while ignoring the other 30 studies is presumptuous at best. Four out of four studies that I found concluded that early education is beneficial. These studies were presumably done with middle and upper income kids and had nothing to do with Head Start.
So, Rincon, do you stand by your previous statement in its entirety?
“Thanks, Thomas, for giving me the opportunity to expose the extreme bias of the Heritage Foundation. I was unable to find the first quote via Google, which causes me doubt that it is accurate. I did find the original paper though.
“Here’s a quote from it: ‘The study shows that providing access to Head Start led to improvements in the quality of the early childhood settings and programs children experienced. On nearly every measure of quality traditionally used in early childhood research, the Head Start group had more positive experiences than those in the control group’ (from page 33 or XXV of the report) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/executive_summary_final.pdf
“Sure doesn’t sound like the Heritage paper. Read the rest. You’ll find that it does not address the original statement you made.
“Nevertheless, the Heritage Foundation report is not accurate in the least. If all you read is from those you agree with, you’ll always have your views confirmed, regardless of their merit.”
Of course, Milty, except that I suppose it’s technically incorrect to call them inaccurate. They’re actually somewhat accurate, but they shield you from any information that doesn’t support their bias. The Heritage foundation mischaracterized the original paper and totally ignored the fact that the majority of 31 studies found benefits. I’ve found this kind of deck stacking with other subject matter as well.
Heritage, a conservative organization, took the Head Start Impact Study and concluded, “For more than 40 years, this pet project [Head Start] has been a sinkhole for taxpayer dollars and an ineffective education program for children.”
Brookings, which Rincon has characterized as “a Liberal think tank,” took the Head Start Impact Study and concluded that “Head Start isn’t doing the job the families it serves and the nation need.”
Both institutions came to the same conclusion thru a combination of Heritage’s conservative bias and Brookings’ liberal bias.
Is this a correct summary of your opinion of Heritage, Brookings, and Head Start, Rincon?
Well . . . . . . . . . . .
I guess I must be the most despicable, detestable, contemptible, crackpot conservative because I would shut down the public schools, fire all the teachers, get rid of the administrators, seize the pension coffers, and make government funded education illegal!
Over fifty percent of my property taxes goes DIRECTLY to supporting education in this state EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO KIDS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS! To you government-loving, God-hating liberals, WHAT’S “FAIR” ABOUT THAT! You all harp about the rich paying their “fair share” . . . . why is it fair that I should have to subsidize reeducation camps when I have no kids!!!?
(Wait, wait, . . . . don’t tell me, . . . . . I know the answer . . . I’m a morally bankrupt, religious-right whack job whose world view is erroneous, invalid, disgusting, and I just need to shut the f*** up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . right??)
Many Nevada property owners pay over $1200 per year on property taxes and a reduced bill of $600 would certainly help the family budget. The reduced tax burden would stimulate the economy, jobs would grow, employment compensation would increase, enabling a parent to stay home to educate the kids.
(Wait, wait, . . . . don’t tell me, . . . . . that idea is ignorant and stupid, because . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I’m a morally bankrupt, religious-right whack job whose world view is erroneous, invalid, disgusting, and I just need to shut the f*** up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . right??). Hmmm . . . . . sounds familiar . . . . . . .
The state has usurped the responsibilities of parents educating their children. Let every parent be responsible for their own child’s education not the government. The state has NO natural right to educate your kids and they shouldn’t be allowed to. Just look at the public schools in Kalifornia. They’ve decided that faggots are God’s gift to humanity. Just look at the K-12 curriculum and the emphasis on homosexual reeducation. Of course, liberals love it because they hate God and his laws on sexual behavior.
Public funded education is nothing but a democrat employment, electioneering and indoctrination center. Public school union dues are used to elect democrats who pass laws to increase public employees and their unions.
And the cycle goes on. Even police-state republi-RATS go along with nanny-state demo-RATS in increasing school funding. I’m sick of the whole f****** bunch of them. TYRANTS ALL!
There is no point in attempting to persuade liberals to this viewpoint. As I said, earlier, they do not believe any of my views are valid, defensible, or rational. So be it. I don’t intend to persuade or convince them. I intend to defeat them.
There is no “common ground” to be found between red states and blue states.
There will be civil war.
You should note that I never claimed that Head Start had been proven effective, Milty. In fact, to quote from myself from my post above: “The bottom line for me is that if the impact isn’t robust enough to be obvious, spending the money may not be worth it. Kids in poverty need help, but improving the schools may be a better approach.” I said this before the Brookings Institute was even mentioned. To me, there was enough conflict in the 31 studies that any benefits were unlikely to be major enough to justify the cost.
Thomas’ comment was not about Head Start, but about early schooling in general. My initial reply was about that, not Head Start. As the Brookings, Wikipedia, and my Google Scholar search all indicate, there is substantial evidence that early schooling (if done well presumably)can have substantial benefits. Thomas made this black and white when there is clearly a huge gray area.
THe Heritage and Brookings foundation both made a similar leap, which we often see in the reporting of medical studies. The latest study is always the correct one….until the next latest study comes along and then suddenly, that’s the one that’s right There have been 31 studies. The Brookings Institute does acknowledge the other studies and says many were flawed. This may be critical. Your research with the Brookings article is importsnt to this discussion. The fact that both a liberal and conservative think tank conclude that Head Start is failing is persuasive, but both appear to mischaracterize the report at least so far as I can tell from reading the actual study. That seems unlikely. Am I missing something? – that is, other than a brain : )
I am still confused as to how both the Heritage Foundation and the Brookings institute paint a black and white picture when the report itself seems far more nuanced as this quote from the study itself shows: “The study shows that providing access to Head Start led to improvements in the quality of the early childhood settings and programs children experienced. On nearly every measure of quality traditionally used in early childhood research, the Head Start group had more positive experiences than those in the control group” (from page 33 or XXV of the report) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/executive_summary_final.pdf
It appears to be the study described. Is it possible that this quote is from a different study?
K. Martin
Think about it. We are raising the people who will be running this country once we have reached our retirements.
I too do not have children. I too pay the property taxes that support public education.
I want those people to have a good chance of running this country well, and educated people run things better than uneducated people do.
In fact educated people who have positions of responsibility in all aspects of life continue educating themselves, either by going back to school or by self teaching.
I understand your stance and suggest you think about how you want your future to play out.
I want my money to be used wisely and I currently think it is not. This hurts my future, I want the best for my future and it only follows this is best accomplished by planning for my own financial health and fully educating this country’s children who will be in charge once I am no longer working. This benefits me and the children, its not sociopathic, its symbiotic.
Investing in my financial future is much the same as investing in the future of this country by fully and properly educating its future workforce, leaders and innovators. This is only investment, its not generational welfare. I want to invest wisely, don’t you?
Anyone care to comment on the fact that “K. Martin” is a homophobe and a bigot?
To me, the bottom line when it comes to public schooling is, should the children of poor families hvve access to as good an education as the children of the rich or middle class. The answer for most of us is no. Parents that work hard to provide for their children feel that they deserve the right to provide a superior education for their children as long as they pay for it. That being said, denying a good education to children of lower income families would quickly lead to a caste system.
We already stratify our school system with zoning laws. Parents spend mightily on bigger and better homes so that their children can attend school in a high ranking school district. The poor usually end up attending school in a low ranking district. I would seek to minimize rather than maximize this stratification. Eliminating public schools is fine if we can find a way to insure an adequate education for all.
That pretty well sums it up, Rincon: “To me, there was enough conflict in the 31 studies that any benefits were unlikely to be major enough to justify the cost.”
Funny that people on this board keep talking about Head Start, while the Nevada Democrats’ proposal is about Kindergarten
Funny, the blog posting reads:
“According to an AP story, Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday unveiled education plans for the upcoming legislative session. They call for early development programs for at-risk students and expansion of all-day kindergarten.”
Head Start is an “early development program.”
One of many such early education/intervention programs. But since Head Start is a federal program, I don’t think it is what the state legislators had in mind.
So do you support the principle that every Nevada child should get full kindergarten?
No, be able to choose.
Andre Agassi put money where his ideas were. He is a believer in education for the poor so he put his money into http://www.agassiprep.org/ the whole operation is located in a very poor area and aimed at the people living in this same area.
The big difference is Andre Agassi put his money where you guys mouths are. He is leading by example. And the school is a charter school, hence outside the confines of the education establishment too.
Getting the kids out of the grip of educrats is paramount.
Putting your money where your mouths are is key if you want support from conservatives who happily also support the Agassi Academy.
So, should public full kindergarten be available for every Nevada child whose parents choose to put him or her in kindergarten?
Agassi believes in that, and puts his money behind it. You willing to step up with the cash Nyp?
If they choose to pay, if they can.
Why do you keep trying to push the discussion back to kindergarten, Nyp? Do you miss the finger painting and nap time that much?
There you have it. Mr. Mitchell doesn’t believe in full public kindergarten for Nevada kids.
Nor does he believe in 1/2 day kindergarten.
In fact, he doesn’t believe in public first or second grade, either. Or third grade. Or ninth grade.
That is because he does not believe in public education at all.
You going somewhere with all this, Nyp, or are you just running laps?
Why run laps when circles are the point?
Just trying to pin him down, since he is being so cagy.
He doesn’t care about competing research studies. That’s all fluff.
On principle he opposes all public education.
Nope, I don’t “believe in” public education, nor in sacrificing for the public congregation, nor that all-day kindergarten leads to salvation.
Kids don’t need full day kindergarten. Before third grade any advantage is washed out with the half dayers.
They need full day high school.
Ha. Athos, you commie. Mr. Mitchell doesn’t believe in public high school, either.
You see, Mr Mitchell has the courage of his extremism.
No public kindergarten. No public elementary school at all. No public middle school. No public high school.
And U. Nevada? Fugedaboudit!
Regarding the NSHE, I was surprised by some recent blog entries by former Chancellor Jim Rogers.
http://jimrogersnevada.blogspot.com/
What is interesting to me about Jim Rogers, he so willing to accept defeat for the Nevada University system. It has a decade to find ways to use what it has been researching to create revenue.
I cannot find reason for his negativity. It is certain if the University does not try then it will fail. So why not even try? Why lament all the others successes and claim only tuition will rise?
While most people reach decisions using facts and analysis, progressives “believe in” the devinely delivered dogma found in the four gospels of Karl, Friederick, Vladimir and Woodrow.
Thomas Mitchell believes that public elementary schools are, by their nature, Marxist.
I disagree.
Generally unwise to paint all “progressives” with the same brush, Thomas. However, when in Rome…I find that extremists on both sides have a tendency to follow a set dogma and to believe what they want to believe rather than what the evidence shows.
Of course, if Thomas Mitchell really doesn’t believe we should have public schools at all, why all the argle-bargle about Head Start research studies? Three dozen research studies could each conclusively demonstrate the Head Start is guaranteed to produce Nobel Prize winners, and it still would not matter to Thomas Mitchell. He opposes all public education as a matter of principle.
“Three dozen research studies could each conclusively demonstrate the Head Start is guaranteed to produce Nobel Prize winners” except none do so.
It doesn’t matter. Mr. Mitchell opposes all public education at all levels. K through college. He thinks public schools are morally wrong.
And we get back to the original statement in the blog. All day K is a waste of money and effort. Let the kids enjoy their early years.
Actually, Mr. Mitchell said above that he wasn’t talking about kindergarten, but about pre-K.
But it doesn’t matter, for the entire discussion was disingenuous — he hate all public schools, and wants to abolish them.
Your opinion as to his feelings on public schools does nothing to change the correctness of his original post.
You don’t get it. This has nothing to do with my “opinions” about Mr.Mitchell’s “feelings.” It has to do with his stated positions on this thread.
It was Mr. Mitchell, not me, who wrote:
“Nope, I don’t “believe in” public education, nor in sacrificing for the public congregation.”
He has had multiple opportunities to respond to my statement that he clearly believes that state universities should be abolished, that there should be no public elementary schools, middle schools, high schools. But he has been silent. That is because Mr. Mitchell believes, as a matter of principle, that there should be no public education for anyone. Think for a moment about the extraordinarily extreme and radical vision of American life that Mr. Mitchell’s philosophy implies. Think what your own lives would have been like without your public schools.
Yet no one seems to care.
I write what “I think,” Petey. I don’t need an interpreter.
Just don’t pretend that you really care about the efficacy of Head Start. You oppose it whether it improves student performance or not.
Same with full-time kindergarten. You oppose it because you believe all public education should be abolished, not because you don’t know whether it will lead to an increase in high-school SAT scores. So let’s cut the pretense.
Stop telling me what I believe, Petey. Stick to saying what you think, please. I can speak for myself.
I said, for the record, that spending money on early education did not appear to have a very attractive cost/benefit ration.
You said for the record that you don’t believe in public education. Period.
So here is your chance to clear up any misunderstanding: should the taxpayers be obligated to support, through mandatory local or state taxation, public elementary and secondary schools available without further charge to every Nevada child?
Whatever your view, it is a very straight-forward question, and not at all difficult to answer.
Asked and answered. Nothing to clear up.
An exercise in liberal negotiation. Change the topic then call the opponent radical and wrong.
Thanks be to Nyp for making it clear.
So the answer is “no.”
See, folks, that is the kind of radicalism we are dealing with here. So the next time Mr. Mitchell or his ilk attacks Democrats for having the temerity to believe that children in America have the right to a decent education and decent medical care, just remember that the attack is coming from someone who believes that the public schools that you attended should never have existed in the first place, and who wishes to abolish your grandchildrens’ public schools.
Steve – Mr. Mitchell admits that I have properly characterized his views.
Do you agree with him that there should be no public schools and no state universities?
No.
But that is not the topic I am discussing. Do YOU agree with the vast majority of studies, all day K and early start programs are a waste of effort and money?
No, and I deny your premise.
Then you deny the premise of virtually every study on the matter, Nyp.
Wrong.
Show the majority of studies that support you. I have shown mine.
You are not going to be able to show this.
No, you did not.
Good Nyp is in denial mode. That ends it.
http://4thst8.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/nevada-democrat-are-confused-about-causality/#comment-11494
The study you cite deals solely with Head Start, a pre-school enrichment program for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Not with pre-K programs for children who aren’t living in poverty.
Not with half-day kindergarten programs, for either poor or not-poor children.
Not with full-day kindergarten programs, for either poor or not-poor children.
So yes, I continue to dispute your premise.
So what. You do nothing but deny. Put up or shut up. Show us yours.
If Nyp writes something, and no one reads it, is he still wrong?