The Founding of Universal Pre-K in New York City

Video From: The Mayor’s Office on Youtube

“In 2013, Bill de Blasio campaigned for mayor on a promise of universal pre-K” (Kirp). In 2014, after de Blasio had taken office, UPK (also called Pre-K for All) was right at the top of his agenda. After he took office, the program was explosively successful. “Legislators and governors across the country waxed lyrical about the city’s initiative, framing it as a paragon for other school districts and states to follow. After all, though most states have some form of public preschool in place, only two—Georgia and Oklahoma—currently have free, universal pre-k that’s available to kids of all means” (Wong).

Before discussing the causes, effects, and outcomes of the program, let’s address the basics:

What is Pre-K for All? 

Pre-K for All, offered by New York City, is “free, full-day, high-quality Pre-K for All programs throughout the city as well as some programs for younger children.” “Pre-K programs help kids learn to play together, share and take turns, and put their thoughts into words. They develop coordination by building, pretending, drawing, and running around. They become familiar with common concepts like letters, numbers, shapes, colors, and foods. They learn to ask good questions, but they don’t have to know the answers” (NYCDOE).

To gain some more information, we interviewed 3 Instructional Coordinators for Pre-K for All in New York City. We created a questionnaire that we distributed to one of the Administrative Offices of Instructional Coordinators in NYC. We received three responses. An Instructional Coordinator or ‘IC’ is a coach for Pre-K teachers within the Pre-K for All initiative. They visit Pre-K for All programs throughout New York City and oversee the curricula, classroom set up, and the overall environment of the class. They work alongside the teachers to form interesting, age appropriate, and effective lesson plans, and observe to make sure everything is up to par. We have left out their names for privacy purposes, and will be referring to them as A, B, and C.

From your experience, what do you believe is the most fundamental part of Pre-K for All?

A. “Pre-K for All is a program for 4 year olds designed to prepare them for Kindergarten. Pre-K focuses on school readiness.”

B. “Pre-K for All is a program provided by the NYC Department of Education to provide free, full-day, high-quality education to all 4 year olds living in New York City. The program is designed to provide opportunities for children to explore, create, and prepare themselves for Kindergarten.”

C. “Pre-K for All is a program for four-year-old children. It is the foundational year of their education where they are developing social skills, early literacy skills, and a sense of independence. The important thing to note about Pre-K, and what makes it so developmentally appropriate, is that children learn through play. Teachers provide fun and engaging activities for the students and allow the students to discover and explore autonomously.”

What are some of the benefits to having children in Pre-K?

A. “Children who attend Pre-K typically demonstrate better reading, math, and writing skills as well as language skills.”

B. “Social and emotional preparation. Students learn to make friends and practice independence and social skills. Children are being exposed to the expectations set before them in the various academic domains – literacy, math, science, and social studies.”

C. “Children in Pre-K are developing social skills and language skills as well as self-regulation skills which are the foundation of their education.”

What are some issues of having children in Pre-K? Is it too early for them to go to school? Is the environment fostering good, healthy development?

A. “If the program focuses on developmental practice it fosters healthy development.”

B. “For most children, this is an ideal age to begin learning in a formal environment. Being with other children helps them to make friends and prepare for Kindergarten.”

C. “I don’t see any negatives to early education. The earlier the better. Children in a good, developmentally appropriate program gain so many skills that they wouldn’t get at home. As long as learning through play is provided and balanced with fun and engaging activities, I am all for it!”

Why do you think Pre-K for All has taken off in New York City so quickly compared to other cities?

A. “There were many resources including monetary and Pre-K instructional support set in place. It also affords parents the opportunity to work, and to not have to pay for childcare.”

B. “There is a need for childcare as there are many working parents, and many single parents in NYC.”

C. “Free school is a gift. Early education is a gift. We live in a city where 2 parent incomes are important, and are often necessary, and kids would be in daycare regardless. By providing this service free of charge, it is a real financial help to ALL families regardless of their income.”

Armed with the facts about the most fundamental aspects of Pre-K for All, we were able to do more research to delve into some of the main issues that the program has faced since its inception.

Segregation:

Does Pre-K for All create more segregation than other Public School programs?

Since the program began, this question has rung in the ears of New Yorkers. While many argue that the program encourages inclusion because it is Pre-K for ALL, there seems to be a strong oppostition.

Alia Wong analyzes both sides of the dilemma in “A Tale of Two Pre-Ks”, published in The Atlantic in February 2015. She cites a study performed by Bruce Fuller from University of California at Berkeley’s Institute of Human Development. Fuller has been leading studies since De Blasio’s initial plan for Universal Pre-K went public. In his studies, Fuller has compared the actual number of available “preschool seats” in “the city’s most affluent neighborhoods” to that in “the poorest ones.” From this research he discovered that “whereas 41 percent of the slots are located in the most affluent one-fifth of the city’s zip codes, just 30 percent of them are in the poorest one-fifth.” While Fuller and his research team acknowledge that real estate does play a part in this disparity, they argue that something else must be at play here. There must be a reason that “roughly 11,000 4-year-olds living in those poorest neighborhoods aren’t even enrolled in the program” (Wong).

Devora Kaye, the spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Education, fired back at Fuller’s study. Her response:

“Dr. Fuller completely misses the point. Thousands of children, most of them in low-income communities, now have pre-k for the very first time. But part of our mission is also to create better options even for those who had some sort of childcare before. When a family that had to pay thousands out of pocket is now getting pre-k for free, that’s a win for that family. When a child that would have sat in daycare is now getting high-quality, educationally enriching pre-k instead, that’s a win for that child. And when a community that previously only had half-day options now has pre-k for the whole day, that’s a win for that community. The whole point of this program is to create high-quality, free, full-day options for every family—every child, rich and poor. That’s why we’re here. And by any honest measure, that’s what we’re achieving.” (Wong)

Elizabeth A. Harris from the New York Times, in “Racial Segregation in New York Schools Starts With Pre-K, Report Finds,” published in September 2016, provides another possible reason for the divide in enrollment between poorer and wealthier communities. She attributes the split to the fact that private schools, organizations, and community centers can house Universal Pre-K programs as long as they meet the NYCDOE’s requirements. While some “community-based pre-k centers” are “funded by the city’s Administration for Children’s Services,” and are geared toward “students from low-income families,” others are much more particular. “Some organizations give priority to children who were previously enrolled as 3-year-olds, in programs their parents may have paid for, or who might have siblings enrolled at the center.” They may give preferential treatment “to children who speak a particular language, or to those whose families receive social services from the organization. In many cases, they have established relationships within particular communities” (Harris).

These criticisms made by Harris are largely due to a report put out by the Century Foundation, which “found that in 2014-15, the first year of the major prekindergarten expansion… prekindergarten classrooms tended to be more racially homogeneous than even the city’s public kindergartens” (Harris).

Since the program is relatively new, and much of these criticisms came in after just one year of the Pre-K for All initiative in New York City, Halley Potter, the author of this report, argues that it is necessary to “’keep in mind,’ [that] ‘this was the first year of universal pre-K, coming out of a system where most kids were either in private pay or means-tested programs; there weren’t that many seats that were available to kids of all backgrounds. Making that step to universal is huge.’” (Harris).

Segregation is an issue that the Department of Education has been dealing with for decades, as we touch upon in our Segregation section. Since the Pre-K for All program is so new, it seems that they have been taking a more gentle approach to encouraging diversity within the more private programs. “For example, the Education Department has begun allowing individual schools to mold admissions policies that would create a more diverse student body, by doing things like setting aside seats for students who are learning English. A couple of districts are also discussing ways of creating more socioeconomically balanced schools in their areas. But critics have called these efforts too incremental for such a far-reaching and entrenched problem.” (Harris)

Too Much Too Soon?

While the Instructional Coordinators we interviewed, who work with dozens of classrooms per week, view Pre-K for All as essential and an incredible alternative to other forms of childcare, some argue that these children are simply too young for school. Kristin Iverson, in her article, “The Problem With Universal Pre-K: Is it Worth it?” in Brooklyn Magazine questions whether it is actually essential for these young children, or if it is simply acting as a babysitter.  While Iverson errs she argues that the school day is 11 hours long, her point remains. Universal Pre-K is being advertised as free childcare, and therefore it is being treated as just that. “Yes, school functions as a place in which a child is cared for [sic] many hours of the day, but ultimately, school is not a replacement for childcare” (Iverson). Iverson raises another interesting point, and argues that Universal Pre-K cannot be advertised as convenient childcare because there are so many “random days off…during the average school year” which leaves parents in the same dilemma as before (Iverson).

The actual full Pre-K school day is 6 hours and 20 minutes long, far shorter than the day Iverson described. Some still argue, though, that organized school for that many hours can be excessive for young students. Movements have sprung up around the City for half-day programs which are 2 hours and 30 minutes long. “Half-day programs can provide a high quality educational experience to orient children to elementary school — with less probability of stress than full-day programs.  The shorter length of the day is in keeping with young children’s attention span and interest levels.  And the shorter day permits more time for young children to interact with adults and peers in a less-structured or home environment.” There are cons though, “in a half-day program, young children need to navigate numerous, major transitions in a relatively short period of time.  And there are fewer opportunities for trips and large group activities such as assemblies.” (Cardwell)

What both of these authors do not acknowledge is the actual curriculum of the Pre-K for All program. While it is portrayed by Iverson and Caldwell as this rigid, strict, school day, Pre-K is actually play-based. The curriculum is geared to include engaging and meaningful activity. There is a major focus on experiential learning in the classroom, and the goal of the ideal Pre-K classroom is to be as fun and engaging as possible. There is lunch, gross motor time, choice time and nap time to break up the day, which keeps attention spans in check. “Pre-K for All’s research-based Interdisciplinary Units of Study, [was] created by the Division of Early Childhood Education (DECE) in collaboration with researchers, support student learning in all domains using developmentally appropriate practice” (NYCDOE). There are two curriculums that are taught throughout the city. The first is called the “NYC Explore Track,” and the other is geared toward “other Instructional Tracks.” The track that is taught depends on the school. The two tracks are very similar, and include the same topics, but approach them differently. The curriculum is divided into units that delve into a variety of relevant, age appropriate, and fundamental, edcuational topics. As an example, let’s look into the “NYC Explore Track.”

The units for the “NYC Explore Track” are as follows:

  • “Unit 1: Welcome to Pre-K Explore
  • Unit 2: My Five Senses Explore
  • Unit 3: All About Us Explore
  • Unit 4: Where We Live Explore
  • Unit 5: Transportation Explore
  • Unit 6: Light Explore
  • Unit 7: Water Explore
  • Unit 8: Plants Explore
  • Unit 9: Babies Explore
  • Unit 10: Transformaton Explore” (NYCDOE)

It is evident that exploration is greatly encouraged throughout each unit of the school year. The unit outlines utilized by the teachers, which are available here: http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/EarlyChildhood/educators/prekunits.htm, are detailed and organized. They include vocabulary words, suggested questions, goals to set, and suggested learning centers and activities to go along with each lesson. It is clear from these curriculum outlines alone, that the education taking place in Pre-K for All is experiential, engaging, and fun, rather than strict and intense as Iverson and Cardwell argue.

 

Works Cited:

Cardwell, Nancy M. “Pre-Schools: Half-Day vs. Full-Day for 3-Year-Olds.” NY Metro Parents, Davier Media, 1 Mar. 2008.

Harris, Elizabeth A. “Racial Segregation in New York Schools Starts With Pre-K, Report Finds.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Sept. 2016.

Iversen, Kristin. “The Problem with Universal Pre-K: Is It Worth It?” Brooklyn Magazine, Brooklyn Magazine, 25 Feb. 2014.

Kirp, David L. “Opinion | How New York Made Pre-K a Success.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Feb. 2016.

NYCDOE. “Educators.” Pre-K for All Interdisciplinary Units of Study – Educators – New York City Department of Education, NYCDOE, 7 Apr. 2017.

NYCDOE. “Pre-Kindergarten.” Pre-Kindergarten – Pre-Kindergarten – New York City Department of Education, NYCDOE, 13 May 2017.

Wong, Alia. “A Tale of Two Pre-Ks.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 25 Feb. 2015.