When you walk into one of these homes, you notice that the house itself is very poorly maintained. The furnishings are usually minimal. There are no decorations, pictures, or keepsakes. Things often look very dirty. Yet, there will often be a large screen T.V. and a DVD player in the living room.

The family may have very little to eat. The rent may be late. The kids may sleep on a mattress on the floor, yet there will be an iPod or a less expensive MP3 player. There will usually be several cell phones. Usually, there will be new shoes.

The entertainment toys are more important than food, rent, and decent furniture. The shoes are part of gang status.

It was very small — around 60 children in each of the intervention and control groups.

It was 40 years ago; families, neighborhoods, schools are all very different now, and likely the experiment could not be replicated (and apparently has not been, despite the long period).

The High Scope/Perry Preschool program, which is still selling its materials based on these results, claims that the Perry results depend specifically on their materials used in their entirely, and should not be expected from other preschool experiences.

But the biggest factor is that the children in the study were in the most deprived circumstances imaginable. Though there were some small gains in additional education and increased income (especially for the girls) the most significant factor in the large payoff claimed was that it reduced the percentage of of children who went on to have more than five lifetime arrests from something around 55 percent to 39 percent, a matter of 11 or 12 fewer adults in that category.

If services are expanded to much larger groups of children, most of whom who are unlikely to have five lifetime arrests anyway, the payoff rapidly turns negative.

Denver voters recently approved an increase in the sales tax to fund additional pre-school slots, sold to them by politicians who believed in the Perry Preschool fairy tale and had no clue they’d been duped by advocates.

A new analysis of the famed Perry Preschool Project in Ypsilanti, Michigan claims that program for very poor black children — which was far more intensive than the average preschool — saved $16 for every $1 invested by preventing school failure, welfare and crime.

If I had every dollar ‘saved’ by gov’t programs I’d be able to fill up the Grand Canyon with $100 bills – yet remarkably the gov’t's in debt. Go figure!

Lead pipe cinch in about 15 years – new pre-preschool program to fix problems in preschool.

All four are now excellent students who eat lots of fruit with their crown-covered, silver-filled teeth.

Heck, all you have to do is give the kid choices (holding up two shirts: Do you want the PINK shirt or the GREEN shirt?)

Though my three-year-old and I do have a regular dialogue on “Why Daddy never learned to tell Fuschia from Purple or light pink from Lavender….”

And as far as alphabet goes… I really have NO idea how my older daughter learned hers… it just popped out of her… as did letter recognition and the beginnings of writing….

But on the other hand, we live in a house that is sagging under the weight of books, toys and art supplies….

Though, I must ask… how can “the poor” afford ipods, big screen tvs, and all the other “adult toys” you mentioned? We’re middle class, and we make due with an ancient TV handed down from an uncle, a 15-year-old CD player, and the computer we bought for gradschool 5 years ago…..

If they’re ACTUALLY to poor to buy books and toys and crayons ($.20 a box at walmart…..) and whatnot, how do they afford the other stuff?

(More curious than doubting your assertion…. it just seems odd….)

Looking at the cumulative files for the kids, I would find comments saying that a child needed to practice the alphabet, counting to 100, or identifying colors.

These were reports for first grade kids.

Many parents have no idea how to interact with their young kids to help the kid learn simple things like colors. It is really fairly pathetic, and it crosses all ethnic groups.

To generalize, the pattern seems to appear where there is poverty and ignorance. It also seems to be fairly common among teenage parents who are not prepared to help a young mind develop.

I don’t think people who are outside of systems that work with large groups of kids have an opportunity to see just how common the pattern of poor parenting has become. It is hard to believe how many kids have parents and caregivers who are clueless.

Family daycare in these households usually consists of either another child or an elderly adult who “watches” the child to keep him or her out of trouble. Sadly, that often means that the kid is in a playpen with one or two stuffed animals while the caregiver watches T.V. When the child outgrows the playpen, the kid is often plunked down with a video. The young child learns next to nothing in that environment.

It is very scary to think of how many households like this exist.

Open to everyone, of course.

Personally, I think it’s just a way of subsidizing daycare…

After all, how many 3-6 year olds are going to be able to be academically productive for 6 hours straight.

And why should education money be going to fund snacks and naps for young children? I have pre-schoolers…. there is NO WAY that 6 hours of instruction could POSSIBLY be three times as good as two hours….

There’s a law of diminishing returns in play, and with young children the returns diminish VERY quickly…..

It would probably be optimum, therefore, to limit the size of any such program to the kids that really need it, rather than diluting the teacher quality pool by expanding the program unduly.