But is the proposal - state funding of pre-school - a viable proposition?
One expert on the subject says absolutely not:
Slow the Preschool BandwagonYou'll have to go to the article in order to find out what the myths are. Just understand, the pre-K thing ain't what it's cracked up to be.
By Chester E. Finn Jr.,* writing in the Washington Post
For all its surface appeal, universal preschool is an unwise use of tax dollars. In a time of ballooning deficits, expansion of preschool programs would use large sums on behalf of families that don't need this subsidy while not providing nearly enough help to the smaller number of children who need it most. It fails to overhaul expensive but woefully ineffectual efforts such as Head Start. And it dumps 5-year-olds, ready or not, into public-school classrooms that today are unable even to make and sustain their own achievement gains, much less to capitalize on any advances these youngsters bring from preschool. (Part of the energy behind universal pre-K is school systems -- and teachers unions -- maneuvering to expand their own mandates, revenue and membership rolls.)
[T]his campaign rests on four myths ... [link]
So. What say we fix those potholes on I-66 and skip the waste that would go into this union-expansion program?
* Washington Post: "Chester E. Finn Jr., a former assistant secretary of education, is most recently the author of "Reroute the Preschool Juggernaut." He is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute."