OCEAN ISLE BEACH – The Charlotte Observer has a major story in its Sunday edition about the Bright Beginnings program, a preschool initiative begun by previous Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Superintendent Eric Smith and much-touted by Democrats and Republicans alike, and not just in Charlotte.
Bearing a stronger attention to academic preparation and to at-risk children than former Gov. Jim Hunt’s Smart Start boondoggle, Bright Beginnings had seemed to many to represent the local pilot of a means of shifting statewide taxpayer dollars away from simple child-care subsidies (Smart Start) and towards targeted resources to a smaller subset of truly desperate children.
As I noted in this column a few weeks ago, however, (see http://www.carolinajournal.com/dailyjournal/071002.html) the bloom has come off this rose, care of a follow-up study of Bright Beginnings youngsters as they completed the third grade this year. As The Observer reports today (see http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/3840825.htm), the debate continues about what the numbers mean. Does the fact that Bright Beginnings kids didn’t, as a whole, perform better than eligible children not enrolled in the program mean that it didn’t achieve its objectives? Or is it relevant that about 11 percent of Bright Beginnings kids failed a grade vs. 36 percent of eligible non-participants, which could mean that the latter group’s scores were inflated in the third grade testing, thus hiding the program’s success?
Advocates say more study is needed. Critics say more study is needed. And naturally, whoever is doing the study says that more study is needed. On this one, though, I’m going along with the crowd. By all means, let’s get a better handle on what has happened with Bright Beginnings – including the impact on test scores from the district’s reported policy of giving special attention to Bright Beginnings kids in school, which if true would seem to invalidate a conclusion that the program generated whatever gains are visible (see http://www.carolinajournal.com/dailyjournal/051302.html).
Otherwise, it would be foolhardy to move forward with additional spending on this already expensive program, or use it to justify a statewide roll-out of Gov. Mike Easley’s More at Four program. I have never believed that, given our massive investment in public schools, it is unthinkable for the state to fund some preschool interventions for children who are so desperately poor, and essentially unparented, that they are unlikely to learn when they get to school. This is a small group where intervention might bear fruit and wouldn’t break the bank.
Too bad the politicians have visions of universal preschool dancing in their heads. That’s where we are really headed, and it is a horrible – not to mention horribly wasteful – idea.