Should the legislature earmark funding for pre-kindergarten before adjournment?

Michael Olson May 18, 2015, 8:30 AM May 18, 2015

“The final lap in a five-month session proved as messy as ever. Much of it stemmed from a tussle over an ample surplus and the return of split-party control — Republicans run the House and Democrats hold the Senate and governor’s office,” reports the Associated Press.

After working through the night, the House voted along party lines for a $17 billion education plan with $400 million in new school spending. The Democratic-controlled Senate is expected to follow suit later Monday. But Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton insists he’ll veto the bill because it leaves out money for a preschool expansion initiative at the core of his agenda.

Today’s Question: Should the legislature earmark funding for pre-kindergarten before adjournment?

Dayton emphasizes his pre-k plan is voluntary. "If they're blocking this, shame on them." #mnleg

— Catharine Richert (@CatRichert) May 17, 2015

About the blogger

Michael Olson

molson@mpr.org • @publicmic

Editor, MPR News

lindblomeagles

Although I’m not totally sure I support funding for pre-K, I also don’t quite understand why this is holding up the legislature. The science has said for sometime now that kids with strong Pre-K backgrounds do better in later grades. If that is correct, the issue here should be how will future pre-K services be evaluated, not whether or not it should be funded.

Jeff

Those gains are completely lost by the time those kids reach middle school and high school…the longer term studies show virtually no benefit if you watch the kids long enough. The big issue is that the DFL Senate and GOP House have come to an agreement and it’s governor mumbles who is the problem. He can’t come in at the last minute, without working with legislators and doesn’t bother to craft bills for months and then demands this with a day or two left before the session ends and expect to get what he wants. He’s acting like a spoiled child and I think if he wants to veto the education bill he can go ahead and do that but he should take 100% responsibility for it.

John Dilligaf

No. There is no long term benefit for structured, taxpayer funded Preschool. it would be a waste of taxpayer funds and another slap in the face of home daycare providers.

Jim G

Yes. The Governor said this was his top priority. The House is disrespectfully spiteful of the Governor if they don’t at least make an effort to meet Dayton’s number one goal. I support this funding because it works to eliminate the gaps for which Minnesota is infamous.

Jeff

He also said increasing gas taxes was a top priority…as was increased education funding overall…as was unionizing day-care workers. Oh yeah, don’t forget he’s been talking about waterway buffers for the past month. Fantastic quote from him:

“I am frequently asked, ‘What are my top priorities for this session?’ ” Gov. Mark Dayton said. “My simple, straight answer is: Everything.”

When everything is a priority then nothing is…

Source:

https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2015/04/four-things-we-learned-gov-mark-daytons-state-state-address

Laura Daumann

Think of the cost ! It is only the beginning. We already have funding in place for working parents for preschool. Think of the Busing. This is nothing but a legacy issue with Dayton.

a_tribe_called_chris

I think the Governor is acting like a toddler on this one.

Nato Coles

The legislature absolutely should fund Dayton’s pre-K plan, and Dayton is right to hold the line. Study after study shows that pre-K for kids makes for better students and adults down the line. Here are some links, in particular the documentary is vital listening (or reading, if you only have time for the summary).

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/preschool/

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/11/25/pre-kindergarten-study

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/02/04/383571989/pre-k-pays-off-by-lowering-special-ed-placements
Gary F

Cradle to grave government. Then next session, they will want something else. It’s never enough.
- kevins
  
  So if the educators funded with this money were private contractors, would that be the “government” you speak of? Think of building a road or bridge…are the contractors, laborers, etc. government?
- Dave M
  
  You benefit too, Gary. You benefit too.
kevins

I support funding early childhood education, because despite skeptics, early intervention is an empirically supported method of addressing longer term problems in child development, and more broadly, in our culture. Whether it has to get funded by midnight is debatable, but I hope that serious lawmakers will show some foresight and create an environment where funding is possible soon.
davehoug

There are limited $. Are they better spent helping parents teach children their colors or helping middle-school students learn??? Would a struggling student benefit more from reduced class size / more attention from teachers or having been taught to make crafts before kindergarten?
Has Head-Start made a difference in reducing the achievement gap?
- Nato Coles
  
  To answer your last question, check this link. http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/preschool/
Mark

There is clear evidence that quality early childhood education has long term benefit. I think there are better ways of dealing with this than adding another grade, which is what we would be doing. When the funding runs out in a couple years school districts would have to go back and ask for more from their taxpayers to keep it operational. This is not even taking into account the added space that would be required by many districts. There are too many loose ends to this plan as it stands. I voted for him both times and would again but I feel this is not the right approach to this issue.
- Jeff
  
  I think that’s besides the point at this time…if it was a priority then the governor should have clearly stated it was a veto issue months ago instead of talking about river/lake buffers for the past month and saying “everything” is a priority.
  - Mark
    
    Uhmm.. Not sure what you are arguing about I agree this is poorly conceived.
Jill K

While it is beneficial for students to have Pre-K education, it shouldn’t be the responsibility of school districts to add Pre-K programs for all to their load. There are hardly any districts in the state that have the physical space to add classes (the school that I teach at right now is 100 students over capacity, and it’s a wealthier district,) and finding, training, and licensing the personnel needed for 100,000 more students would be an insurmountable task. Furthermore, what are school districts supposed to do when the surplus runs out? I hope this won’t end up undercutting programming for PhyEd, music, arts, tech, and FACS classes….
LilAsil

Absolutely. Partisanship aside, the dollar for dollar return rate on early education is clear. It’s money well-spent and the outcomes reach far into the future of the children, communities and society at large when all are able to benefit from the programs made available by this investment.
- Nato Coles
  
  Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Al March

Yes. The evidence in favor of the ROI on early childhood education is unequivocally clear. But: It means we need to continue to fund it in the future, and I’m not sure where that money would come from.