ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

Right now I'm a little leery of any study
on the effects of "universal" pre-K on the existing care and education programs for
children of preschool ages. There is controversy, and different groups have different views on how to bring together care and education.Everybody's view is a little biased by our optimism about our own view, and out worst fears otherwise. I expect an initial easy transition if public education controls the money. Maybe that will work. The fear is that since schools don't have space, they will welcome diverse auspices; but that when
schools have time to expand their space,
they will revert to a sense that these are "our" children, to whom we have an obligation, and therefore we should accomodate them in "our" system. This can only work in the long run in states where the education system as a whole embraces care as equally as essential as education, and actually inseparable from it. I'm not a pessimist, but I'm a "wait and see" optimist.

I also am the director of a private preschool in Texas and can fully relate to Patricia's coments. There is a pilot program in our area that has contracted between the public school district and a private center to care for special needs students, but it is the only co-operative arrangement that I am aware of in the state. Under NAEYC accreditation standards a center must care for children from birth to five years. However, we would not qualify because we offer preschool to three-five year olds only. We have provided a quality early education that is highly appreciated by kindergarten teachers in the public schools, however we can not compete with free programs. Right now only students from low income families or those who do not speak English qualify for public pre-k. We serve families whose income is just above the standard set by the district, but who value an early education for their children. We are church based and offer scholarships to those who cannot afford our tuition. Part of my staff is degreed, however I cannot afford to pay salaries comparable to the public schools. Luckily, the staff also view our program as a ministry to the community. But our enrollment drops each year as the public program expands to offer more places for 3-5 year olds. Patricia, check with your local district and see if your staff can take advantage of some services like
training and special ed services for students. At least that is a way to get your foot in the door.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case. To make a long story short, the new superintendent in our small town changed the 1/2 day Pre-K program to a full day program open to most this year and all next year at no charge without any input from the community. I (as the only facility in town) had approached the elementary school on this issue to express my interest in partnering with them on Universal Pre-K innitiatives. I was told the system was not pursuing them at that time, however the current initiative was announced shortly thereafter.
Although I do not believe that this initiative was designed to hurt private centers, I do believe that many in the position to implement them feel that government is better suited to educate our children. I wholeheartedly disagree. Even though I do not have any degreed teachers, continuing education is encouraged and required. We provided a quality prgram for Pre-Kindergarten children and continue to provide a quality early child development and education program to all of our children. However, even if I did have degreed teachers, there is no way I can compete with a program that is free of charge. This is especially true in a lower income community such as ours.
I do not writ this just to complain, but to remind all owners and directors that they must not only stay on the ball, but be ahead of the game. I thought I was talking to those I needed to, but unfortunetly I did not have all the bases covered. We must be dilligent or all childcare will be run by the government, which I cannot believe would be a good thing for us and more importantly for the children in our communities.

As an intereested foreign observer of your site and a fan of your groups commitment to the Early Childhood sector I have read the article above and wish to observe that:-
While these assessed outcomes are viewed as a positive direction for the quality of the program and the increasingly professional attitudes of the teachers, it begs the question of why the for-profit operators of these centers waited until the feared (and by inference, forced?) competition from the public sector (and probably fought against politically, if your assertions of anxiety and expectation of losses are accurate?) waited until now to provide a more enightened approach to the childrens care?
My local knowledge of your program is non existant and I stand ready to be put straight, but while I would agree that there are many fine private EY centers around the world, I believe a too heavy philosophical reliance on a free market approach has negative consequences for children and society, your article only seems to confirm this.
That far from being active partners in a renewed efffort to increase quality these centers have been (and still are?) dragged kicking and screaming to the table? This suggests that their primary motivation is the profit and not the child.
The finer points of the financial arangements are not evident in the article, but there is the suggestion that in New York at least there are monetary incentives to align the qualityand inclusion of program to the state goals? how does this fit into the profit equation, might it not be seen as public funding of the quality of a centers program, which then increases the viability of a center and as a consequence its profitability?
This is not then a 'free market' but an indirect subsidy to the private sectors income.