So a long term research study finds that students who can't read well by third-grade are four times less likely to graduate from high school than their proficient peers. If you're a Republican in New Jersey pushing budget cuts what should you do? Cut funding for day care for poor kids, silly. It seems for Republicans the best way to spend education dollars is to decry our failing public education system while undercutting the programs that research shows have the greatest impact on long term student achievement as too costly and unfair.
Follow me after the jump, and we'll look at how Republicans in New Jersey are throwing their children's future under bus because "the constitution doesn't require it" despite some new research that underscores just how costly these cuts will be in the long term.
Education Week reported Monday on a new long-term study of reading proficiency in third-grade students:
A study to be released this morning at the American Educational Research Association convention here in New Orleans presents an even earlier warning sign: A student who can't read on grade level by 3rd grade is four times less likely to graduate by age 19 than a child who does read proficiently by that time. Add poverty to the mix, and a student is 13 times less likely to graduate on time than his or her proficient, wealthier peer.
The study "Double Jeopardy: How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High School Graduation" By Donald J. Hernandez Professor, Department of Sociology Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York looked at the reading proficiency rates and graduation rates of nearly 4,000 students over a ten year period. Some of the reading related findings of the study:
One in six children who are not reading proficiently in third grade do not graduate from high school on time, a rate four times greater than that for
proficient readers.
For children who were poor for at least a year and were not reading proficiently in third grade, the proportion that don’t finish school rose to 26 percent. That’s more than six times the rate for all proficient readers.
Graduation rates for Black and Hispanic students who were not proficient readers in third grade lagged far behind those for White students with the same reading skills.
So research shows us that third grade reading proficiency is linked directly to high school graduation, that children from poverty who were not proficient readers by third-grade did not graduate at a rate six-time greater than that of their proficient peers, and that the problem was even more pronounced for Black and Hispanic students.
If you're an educator, you look at this and realize that education dollars spent in programs that help school readiness for young and preschool students are dollars well spent that have long term leverage on student achievement. But not if you're a Republican lawmaker in New Jersey, like state Sen. Michael Doherty. Doherty takes a completely bottom line approach:
"The fact is it'd be nice to offer lots of programs. But New Jersey is broke, and the constitution doesn't require it," says state Sen. Michael Doherty, a Republican from Warren.
Doherty represents a large swath of suburban New Jersey where resentment toward the extra funding of low-income schools runs deep. He is proposing that the preschools for poor kids be cut to half-day, and the $300,000 saved be spent on K-through-12 education in the suburbs. Doherty says he prefers the way most states collect an income tax that then funds school districts equally.
"We don't do that in New Jersey," he says. "We collect it progressively, and then we hand it out progressively on steroids, so for every penny that my towns get, other towns in urban areas are getting 40 bucks. So you tell me, anywhere on planet Earth, where that would be fair?"
It would be nice, but it's not fair? It's not fair that children from poverty get the assistance that research shows would have a direct bottom line impact on their long term achievement as this diverts money from more affluent and resource rich suburban schools. There's a bumper sticker Tea Party Patriots would support: "Preschool for Poor Kids: The Constitution Doesn't Require It." So what program is Doherty talking about:
New Jersey has long been under court order to provide extra funding for schools in low-income districts, and for the past 12 years, that has included full-day preschool. But now, facing dire budget cuts, some legislators are questioning whether the state's education system can afford to boost the school readiness of 3- and 4-year-olds and would rather see the money spent on middle- and upper-income schools.
We need to fix our broken public schools and increase student achievement... just as long as it doesn't divert money from middle and upper-income suburban schools to "those" schools or "those" children. You know, "those" schools who's minority children will drop out of high school at a rate six times higher than their peers if they don't learn to read by third-grade. New Jersey can't afford programs like this:
The National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University has followed the impact of these high-quality preschools on low-income children. Its director, Steven Barnett, says New Jersey has made considerable progress in closing the gap in skills between high- and low-income kids when they arrive on the first day of kindergarten.
"There's no question you can make a big dent," he says. "I think it's reasonable to think about eliminating half the achievement gap at the kindergarten door."
Although it is an effective program and potentially eliminates half the achievement gap, it would be nice but costs too much.
It costs too much to save a generation of children.
So in the short term New Jersey will save $300,000. In the long term the high school graduation rates of its lower income and minority student will be up to six times greater than their peers as they will enter kindergarden under prepared.