¹ú²úÊÓƵ

Ever since the release of Reroute the Preschool Juggernaut, a new book by Fordham Foundation president Chester Finn, we have heard a growing chorus of rebuttals from leaders in the early childhood community to Finn’s 123-page argument against universal pre-K. Yesterday, W. Stephen Barnett, co-director of the National Institute for Early Education Research, published his own 14-point of Finn’s reasoning.

Barnett writes that Finn “cherry-picks” evidence that discounts the value of universal pre-K. The book, he says, exaggerates the costs of high-quality, universal pre-K and ignores the research that shows positive long-term academic and social benefits of attending pre-K. Further, the book “seeks to generate fears that big government will mandate cookie-cutter programs in the public schools” when in fact all existing and proposed pre-K programs are voluntary.

To address Finn’s main point, that universal pre-K is a windfall for the rich and that we should only focus on programs targeted to high risk children, Barnett offers two counter-points: 1) “Most families with young children are not rich” and many middle income families are unable to pay for quality early education; 2) Many middle class children experience the same negative educational outcomes — low kindergarten preparedness, school failure and increased high school drop-outs rates — that early education is proven to mitigate. Only a universal pre-K program will guarantee that these children — rich, poor, and middle class — get the early education that will help them succeed.

Barnett acknowledges that Finn raises issues about the universal pre-K movement that are worthy of debate, but he stresses that mischaracterized and inaccurate information can undermine that discussion.

Barnett’s full critique is available . Also check out on Juggernaut as well as views from the Post’s , of the National Head Start Association, and a by the MaryJalonick of the Dallas Foundation and Regen Fearon of Zero to Three.