Taking government bureaucracy just a step too far.
From KELOland news:
Dempster is drafting legislation that would lay the groundwork for state pre-k programs. There’s no funding attached to the bill; it’s simply meant to establish standards for curriculum and outline qualifications for teachers.
“We want to make this a competitive process where a bunch of different providers can compete to be providers of the pre-k. We don’t want this to be a public school thing or anything like that,” Dempster said.
Dempster also says pre-k programs wouldn’t be mandatory for all communities or all kids; it’s only meant to help those who need it most. There’s no way the state could fund such programs right now, but Dempster says passing a bill now would help develop them in the future.
Unfortunately, Senator Dempster is wrong, wrong, wrong on this issue. Why? Because he’s taking it a step too far.
I’m one of those who think that the state is OK to establish curriculum standards. Standards aren’t a bad thing. They set minimum guidelines for a program, to ensure that programs are substantive and provide what the parents – some of whom aren’t necessarily going to know what a good program is, and what a bad one is – are paying for.
Unfortunately, we have people such as Senator Dempster to step in, and screw it all up, by ridiculously morphing simple standards into state funded pre-K.
Dempster claims that “a bunch of different providers can compete to be providers of the pre-k. We don’t want this to be a public school thing or anything like that.” So, then why is he saying the ultimate goal is to have a state funded program, and that “when you establish the imperative, the funding can follow?”
That’s the same mentality used when legislators created a scholarship program without funding. And what came along the following year? A request for money.
The state doesn’t fully fund any other level of education. In fact, there are complaints about the state not paying enough of a portion for what they do fund. So why would he suggest a fully funded program in light of that, ESPECIALLY in times when money is tight? That just smacks of big government liberalism that we need less of – not more.
Because of Dempster stating that his ultimate goal is actually state funded pre-K, I think we can consider the kiss of death imparted upon pre-K standards this session.
Because when people have the kind of goal in mind that Tom does, there’s no way it can, or should pass this year.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
A sincerely hope this bites the dust in a huge cloud. We don’t have the money to fund education the way it is now. Rounds claims the state has little money for the basics this year, let alone new programs that are meant to be state funded, if not now, later. A free public education was never meant to be birth to age 18. And that seems to be what is coming.
Is this like two years ago, when Dempster sponsored a bill to fix health care that didn’t have a plan or any funding either?
Set voluntary standards. Have a voluntary “state seal of approval.” Whatever. But the state doesn’t need to get into this. Let parents be parents.
Most people don’t want state-funded pre-K – and they sure as heck don’t when they find out what it costs.
Get Real,
I’m wondering if you’ve had children in public schools for the last decade, or two? The best arguments against public education are the results produced by public education…
If the state ever establishes state funded pre-K, then the next step is to make it mandatory, and whether or not that’s a popular idea, it’s not a good one…
PP is wrong, wrong, wrong on this. Dempster knows that the future is early childhood education. The rest of the country is there. Get with it, SD.
11:56p
Why is the future in early childhood education? I’ve never seen any studies that suggest that the early gains in test scores hold up past middle school.
If early childhood education was a solution, our high school students wouldn’t score so poorly on standardized tests and our colleges wouldn’t be offerring remedial courses for accepted students.
O, this is just governmental controled babysitting! Watch out, I am sure he will have more lame ideas.
I have a real bad feeling that BO will mandate it at the national level, he is in favor of taking control of the children anyway.
Standards lead to mandate, which leads to funding. Hello the state and the nation is broke people! That goes to the legislators all of them.
Constant conservative has some interesting comments about public school including this quote-
The number of home-schooled kids hit 1.5 million in 2007, up 74% from when the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics started keeping track in 1999, and up 36% since 2003. The percentage of the school-age population that was home-schooled increased from 2.2% in 2003 to 2.9% in 2007. “There’s no reason to believe it would not keep going up,” says Gail Mulligan, a statistician at the center
Government Preschool–actually preschool at all is NOT for the children–it is for the adults– those who would rather pursue their own agenda rather than raise their own children. As we look at how that is working with this generation — problems with respect for authority, living within their means, lack of belonging and the gangs that come of it—the escalation of children killing their parents–it is NOT working well.
Dempster is looking at taking something that South Dakota already does well–letting parents decide what their young children need–and making it like other parts of the country that are reaping the negative rewards of government funded preschool.
Not smart.
Any time we let the state decide what our children need, rather than allowing parents to make those decisions (good, or bad) we risk relinquishing our rights as parents to parent our children.
pat, nobody has ever pointed out that there is a problem with the system we have now. there is no need for government standards, let alone government-funded pre-k.
lexrex:
Maybe the government has not wanted to see changes in education, except when they did a study a few years ago to see how to teach….anyway, my point is.
There have been plenty of people complaining about education with the way it is taught and funded. So I am not sure that I agree with your statement that: “Nobody has ever pointed out that there is a problem with the system we have now.”
Why is it that everytime someone requests guidelines for something there must be other reasons……there are several providers for daycares that would love to have some guidelines to follow so they can help children learn what is needed before they enter into kindergarten. A committee from USD has already layed out a start on this and could be expanded on and approved. I think the SD Dept of Education is in favor of this not requesting funding….you guys need to clean out your ears and not be looking for things always having a sneaky side….
“Look out”
I agree with standards, but Dempster is telling everyone up front what his goal is.
J, i’m not asking about problems with education funding. i’m asking about problems with pre-k that would require the state to step in and create standards.
to date, i have not seen or heard of anyone point to one, singular problem. absent that, this is just a government solution looking for a private sector problem.
Some legislators just want to introduce bills and get media hype to see and to hear their names “out there.” Dempster is one of those and that is a major motive for starting to talk on the subject now.
Some things to keep in mind:
1-South Dakota is one of about a dozen states that have no appropriated state funds going to any form of pre-k. What is out there is federal Head Start, the economic development money going to the pilot in Sioux Falls, or local communities doing something.
2-NO state has mandatory pre-k for any group of kids. I would be surprised if any state did have mandatory pre-k in my lifetime. Certainly South Dakota wouldn’t be the first in line to do so.
3-Dempster’s bill, as I understand it, targets kids who are living in poverty and are on waiting lists for Head Start
4-Noted economists (not educators) have documented the positive results for providing quality pre-k for low income kids. A much better return for tax money than paying for stadiums, the travel of elected officials, or grants to the SD Hall of Fame.
5-Dempster’s bill, again as I understand it, makes community participation in pursuing any future state funds voluntary and (back to point 2) family participation voluntary as well.
Dakota Dad.
You seem very knowledgable about the bill. Thanks,Tom.
Now we have a pre-K proposal (in Tom’s theatrical words once upon a time) as “pure as the driven snow.”
dakota dad, there are also studies that show that pre-k can also have negative effects on the kids’ behavior. and also studies show that the non-pre-k kids almost always catch up by the 2nd grade.
if you really want to help kids, we should instead put added focus on graduation rates and encouraging college.
that said, not one of you have pointed to any problems with the current pre-k system that would warrant the state stepping in to create standards.
a solution seeking a problem. that’s all it is.
Lexrex,
I would agree with you that we need to get more kids graduating from high school and going on to post-secondary programs. The kids won’t get to college if they don’t finish high school (except for folks like Janklow). Graduation rates of children from low income families who have quality pre-k are significantly higher than those who don’t have such programs. Seems like investment on the front end has good pay-offs later on.
As for the current pre-k system, I am wondering what that system is. There is no system. Anybody can put up a sign above their door and call themselves a preschool. Who are these people? What do they know about working with kids? What are their backgrounds? How does anyone know they can work with kids?
In talking to the parents I know (and I will admit, most of them are of average to above average incomes), most of them send their kids to preschool, even if there is a parent at home. What do they know about picking a preschool? Let those buyers beware!!! And, it’s just the tough luck of those who are just scraping by that they can’t do what I did for my girls by sending them to preschool. Too bad, so sad.
the thing is, for me, that it seems that pre-k is already helping the at-risk kids who currently use it. and if the benefits fade out, especially for non-at-risk kids, by the 2nd or 3rd grade, then why the need for more?
if you want to solve the problem of a couple dozen kids on the head start wait list, it doesn’t compute that you would need such a huge addition or overhaul of the pre-k system.
as for your questions about the current pre-k system, have you heard about any actual problems?
Hey PP. Get used to it. Moderate and thoughtful Republicans like Dempster and Knudson are going to cross the aisle more than ever this year and going forward. And, the reason for it may amaze you — it’s what the people want. My God, democracy working. That’s not a bad thing PP. And, that small glimmer of light at the end of the Governor’s mansion tunnel, that just might be the Democrats getting ready to take it back for the first time in three decades.