Want prosperity? Invest in the youngest kids

In 2009, Texas lawmakers were tussling over how much extra money to put into pre-kindergarten and how to allocate it. This year, they aren't even talking about providing that additional funding for 2012-13.

The possible loss of more than $200 million over two years has some school districts poised to make unfortunate choices about cutting back programs for their youngest students.

Such a case of mistaken priorities.

The Legislature recognized in the 1980s that investing in 4-year-olds, and some 3-year-olds, helps significantly in preparing them to succeed down the academic road.

There's a widely acknowledged domino effect: Kids who get a good start on school are more likely to stay out of trouble and graduate, enabling them to be more productive citizens who earn more money, pay more taxes and improve their families' economic situation.

A 2006 report by the Bush School at Texas A&M University concluded that Texas would receive $3.50 in return for every dollar invested in "universally accessible, high-quality pre-kindergarten."

"Pre-kindergarten is one of the most cost-effective educational investments the state can make," the report said.

Texas started requiring -- and paying for -- half-day pre-K in the 1985-86 school year. Districts are to provide the classes if they have 15 or more eligible children. The eligibility list has expanded over the years to encompass, at the very least, 4-year-olds who are disadvantaged, homeless, English-language learners, foster care veterans or from military families.

In 1999-2000, the state added a competitive grant program to help districts with below-average third-grade reading and math test scores build all-day pre-kindergarten classes. The objective was to help get the early start that would enable all kids to learn at grade level by third grade. That's also a goal of the federal No Child Left Behind law.

The amount has fluctuated each legislative session, but close to $200 million has been appropriated each biennium for the pre-K grants. According to the Texas Education Agency, more than 250 grantees were serving some 101,000 students using the grants in 2010-11. That's among more than 214,000 pre-K students statewide in Texas public schools.

The grant program sent almost $8.6 million to Fort Worth, Arlington, Birdville, Castleberry and Everman.

The Fort Worth district combined its $4.3 million with federal and local funds to build a program that serves more than 4,400 youngsters in all-day classes this year. The total cost of that is $18.4 million. But officials project that funding could fall to $10.5 million and require restructuring.

It's inexplicable that the starting House and Senate budgets for the next biennium would reverse course. The House would axe the grants; the Senate would trim them by more than half.

Fort Worth, Arlington and others are looking at half-day pre-k only.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing if the only option is half-day or no pre-K.

But Fort Worth officials have found that students who've gone through the district's pre-k score higher on the third-grade math and reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills than classmates who haven't.

Recent studies in Indiana and Montgomery County, Md., found that the increased instruction time of full-day classes leads to increased educational gains, particularly for disadvantaged students.

In an ideal world, local school boards would find ways to continue full-day programs regardless of what happens in Austin. But the Legislature should get its priorities right.

The Texas Association of Business and Raise Your Hand Texas, a group of business and civic leaders started by former state Sen. Bill Ratliff, have joined with educator groups to urge the Legislature to continue supporting early childhood programs, including the pre-k grants.

Certainly parents are their children's first teachers. But for reasons that often have to do with economic stresses and language barriers, many families don't, can't or simply don't know how to adequately prepare their kids for school.

If an infusion in tax dollars can guard against these children being left behind -- and at a return on investment of better than $3 to $1 -- doesn't that make good economic sense, even in tough economic times?

Looking for comments?