Early childhood “success” based on what?

One of the most frustrating aspects of New Mexico public policy is politicians  and their sycophants who claim success for some government program or another without evidence.

Elizabeth Groginsky, MLG’s Secretary of Early Childhood Education and Care is the latest New Mexico bureaucrat to do this with her new opinion piece in the Albuquerque Journal. The Secretary makes all manner of arguments for “bold investments” in early childhood education. The problem is that New Mexico has been making such “bold” investments for a decade (see chart below).

New Mexico lawmakers cautious on early childhood funding, even though cash rich - New Mexico In Depth

Rather than relying on a bunch of studies that purport to show this spending has been a success, it would seem that after a decade we’d have some positive REAL academic outcomes from those 0-5 year olds who are now students in New Mexico’s K-12 system (there should be plenty of current 4th graders who went through New Mexico’s pre-K program).

Unfortunately, as we discussed recently, the NAEP scores that just came out (which tested both 4th graders and 8th graders) were disastrous. It’s easy to spend more money on government programs. It’s considerably more difficult to achieve results.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

One Reply to “Early childhood “success” based on what?”

  1. Because early childhood “learning” is based on culture, not content. Hiring teachers and paying more obviously is not the answer, especially as the unions do as they please (One union rep in another state was asked why he does not represent the students. His answer was that when students pay union dues he will represent them.) The advocates for the kids consist of family, not government or flacks.
    I have witnessed no benefit in my 3/4 century from kindergarten, let alone “early childhood education”, which properly is the job of family, with a yard, sandbox, and good neighbors.
    Now New Mexico has lost another election, big time (with news items apparently bragging that only one republican won a state-wide office). The state will suffer even more.
    We reportedly have the worst governor in the US; the worst education system in the US; the lowest workforce participation in the US (Hey, it keeps unemployment down – How you think B. H. Obama did it?)
    A one-party system means the party is the system; how’s that working for improvement in authoritarian/totalitarian systems?
    A constitutional federal republic needs both active participation and competent representation. The former relies excessively on partisans, ideologues, and zealots, none of which (They are not “whoms”) is a benefit (And not sure which I dislike/distrust the most.)
    The latter relies on competent, aware people, apparently in short supply.
    We are experiencing the most intense authoritarian administration since FDR; the strongest attacks on speech; the most intense control of speech. All forms.Witness the collusion of government and tech to silence so many voices (But the Taliban has theirs, of course; current conditions here are controlled by a Taliban-like syndicate.)
    As a life-long Jeffersonian Democrat, I fear for the future, especially with this democrat party. No longer a democracy, even in part; it has been stolen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.