Revisiting Parents as Teachers

January 29, 2010

Revisiting Parents as Teachers

I’ve made my case against Parents as Teachers, and I suggested that the program limit eligibility to poor families. That idea was roundly rejected in the comments, on the grounds that Parents as Teachers would become another welfare program that taxpayers have to support but can’t benefit from. My answer to that is: It already is a program that many people have to pay for but can’t benefit from. Infertile couples and single people with no prospects of having children soon have to help pay the more-than-$1,000-per-family price tag for home visits to wealthy parents. And the Parents as Teachers educator doesn’t do anything your pediatrician couldn’t do just as well. You could spend a lot of time with a pediatrician for $1,000+.

This is a popular program that participants feel they gain a lot from, so I realize my opinions aren’t going to change how it’s run. That being the case, I wish people would stop making statements like this one in a letter published in the Post-Dispatch:

Studies have shown that parents who take part in Parents as Teachers are more involved in their child’s school once the child starts kindergarten.

Well-off parents who care about their kids will be the first to sign them up for programs like Parents as Teachers, and they’ll also be the most likely to be active in their kids’ schools. We can’t infer any causal relationship there as long as Parents as Teachers continues its current eligibility policy.

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

9 Comments »

I’m not sure what bee got in your bonnet in the first place about Parents as Teachers, but a couple comments on the latest salvo:
1 – I disagree with your characeterization of the opposition to your earlier, ill-informed opinions. Speaking for myself, the point was that Parents as Teachers is an extension of public schooling. Yes, you could save money by means-testing the program but you could save money by means-testing all public schooling. I think there is broad opposition to such a practice.
2 – What is your support for the statement “the Parents as Teachers educator doesn’t do anything your pediatrician couldn’t do just as well” and the even less plausible suggestion that pediatricians are more cost-effective sources of early childhood eduction?
3 – What is your basis for the assumption that the studies cited by the SLPD letter-writing did not control for income?

Maybe its time to end this ill-informed treatment of Parents as Teachers.

Comment by Tom — January 29, 2010 @ 12:45 p.m.
Thanks for the comments.

1. My characterization was largely based on David Stokes’ response to my last PAT post. If I did not summarize his comment accurately, I hope he’ll correct me.

2. PAT educators don’t have to study child development and health on the same level as an M.D. Pediatricians regularly screen children for the same problems PAT screens for. What is the justification for PAT’s hearing and vision screenings of the children of wealthy parents, who could afford to take them to a pediatrician?

3. The letter writer did not say “controlling for income.” If I’m supposed to believe that great statistical controls were in place, I’d expect some mention of them–or at least the name of the study.

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — January 29, 2010 @ 1:11 p.m.
You say:

“Infertile couples and single people with no prospects of having children soon have to help pay the more-than-$1,000-per-family price tag for home visits to wealthy parents.”

By that logic, childless people shouldn’t have to pay for schools at all, and people who don’t drive shouldn’t pay for roads, and people who don’t use the library shouldn’t have to pay that tax, and people who don’t go to the Zoo shouldn’t pay that tax, and so on. Many tax-supported services are seen as benefiting society as a whole, so society as a whole pays for them. If you disagree with that premise, you have a lot more to complain about than Parents as Teachers.

Comment by Jakey — January 29, 2010 @ 2:30 p.m.
There are alot more grounds for rejecting your ideas on PAT than you give credit for in your comments above. Once again, PAT is an extension of the public school system. They are helping children to be as prepared as possible for grade school. Why not get the teachers involved early with identifying problems instead of when they are eight or ten and fallen even further behind their peers. Taxes are paying for it one way or another, regardless of household income. Schools are obligated to educate these kids, regardless of their problems, and it is all tax payer dollars. Let’s get these kids help when it is the least expensive and at the same time the most effective for the greatest return on the taxpayer dollars.

I really recommend that Sarah researches PAT further to truly understand what the program is and the people that provide the services. I also recommend she look into what general pediatricians practice in their offices, much less the rates they charge.

Comment by DaveG — February 4, 2010 @ 9:00 p.m.
As you know if you’ve read my previous posts about education, I have a lot of problems with the public school system and am opposed to extending it. Any state intrusion into parenting and families could be justified as another extension of the public schools.

But, many people do not share my views and would be happy for the public schools to be involved in their children’s lives from birth.

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — February 5, 2010 @ 7:13 a.m.
Also, some aspects of public schooling are means-tested, such as free lunches. Most public schools serve free lunches only to children from low-income households. Other children are expected to pay, or bring their own lunch.

Does that mean that upper-class children don’t need lunch or couldn’t benefit from cafeteria food? Of course not. But lunches are an extra that aren’t provided free of charge to everyone.

I see home visits as an extra that should likewise be limited to needy families. I’ve mentioned that I would not much mind a free clinic—perhaps in a public school—where anyone could come get parenting advice or a vision screening. But I see no reason why those services should be sent out to a family’s home, unless the household is in dire straits.

If you believe home visits are an essential part of public schooling, you have to explain why the rest of the public schools don’t incorporate them. Why have buildings and classrooms when you could theoretically deliver the same content with daily home visits, k-12?

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — February 5, 2010 @ 7:23 a.m.
If I have to explain the difference between educating k-12 students individually in their homes and PAT, you have not done your research on the program. Home visits are not an extra. I think the PAT “Born to Learn” program would overwhelmingly fail if they get rid of the home visits. It would not be nearly as effective in a group environment at a public venue like you recommend.

I hope you also realize that there are many services PAT facilitates that are provided outside the home and in a group setting.

Once again, I really suggest you research the program at least a little. Their website would be a good place to start as it has a lot of information that I think you would find very surprising as I re-scan your older posts linked above.

Comment by DaveG — February 5, 2010 @ 7:38 p.m.
Home visits are an integral part of PAT, but the entire program is an extra in relation to k-12 education–and therefore, I think, should be means-tested.

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — February 6, 2010 @ 6:43 p.m.
Means tested or not – PAT has been, hands down, the most valuable resource for us as parents in monitoring and aiding the physical, mental and social development of our children. Our parents as teachers representative does a substantial amount of development teaching and addressing issues and answering questions that I would never have thought to even ask a pediatrician. Pediatricians are NOT early child development educators nor do most of them claim to be.
The educational development of my child is not a medical issue nor are pediatricians trained adequately in the field. The idea that our pediatrician could replace the unrivaled resource that our parents as teacher rep has been to us as parents is absurd and ignorantly asinine to say the absolute least. That would be like expecting my auto mechanic to also fix my lawnmower because both are trained to fix gasoline powered engines.

I agree that if you are not a parent, cannot be a parent, or choose not to be a parent then you should not have to participate in paying for the service. However, I myself do not condone war, I do not condone overseas funding for abortion, I do not condone taxpaid support of sports teams, I do not condone bailing out big banks and automakers, but I have to. We all pay taxes for things we not only do not participate in but in most cases disagree with. If some of my tax dollars go to help the kid next door grow up to be smarter, kinder, law abiding citizen that is less of a tax burden on the tax payers than the uneducated, stupid, drug dealing, car stealing thug then my tax dollars have been well spent.

I would happily pay far more in taxes or even fees charged for the Parents as teachers service and I dare say anyone who has benefited from the service as greatly as we have would undoubtedly say the same.

Your commentary on this issue is insultingly ignorant of what PAT actually is and the true service it provides.

Comment by Rick — February 26, 2010 @ 3:06 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Categories

I’m not sure what bee got in your bonnet in the first place about Parents as Teachers, but a couple comments on the latest salvo:
1 – I disagree with your characeterization of the opposition to your earlier, ill-informed opinions. Speaking for myself, the point was that Parents as Teachers is an extension of public schooling. Yes, you could save money by means-testing the program but you could save money by means-testing all public schooling. I think there is broad opposition to such a practice.
2 – What is your support for the statement “the Parents as Teachers educator doesn’t do anything your pediatrician couldn’t do just as well” and the even less plausible suggestion that pediatricians are more cost-effective sources of early childhood eduction?
3 – What is your basis for the assumption that the studies cited by the SLPD letter-writing did not control for income?

Maybe its time to end this ill-informed treatment of Parents as Teachers.

Comment by Tom — January 29, 2010 @ 12:45 p.m.

Thanks for the comments.

1. My characterization was largely based on David Stokes’ response to my last PAT post. If I did not summarize his comment accurately, I hope he’ll correct me.

2. PAT educators don’t have to study child development and health on the same level as an M.D. Pediatricians regularly screen children for the same problems PAT screens for. What is the justification for PAT’s hearing and vision screenings of the children of wealthy parents, who could afford to take them to a pediatrician?

3. The letter writer did not say “controlling for income.” If I’m supposed to believe that great statistical controls were in place, I’d expect some mention of them–or at least the name of the study.

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — January 29, 2010 @ 1:11 p.m.

You say:

“Infertile couples and single people with no prospects of having children soon have to help pay the more-than-$1,000-per-family price tag for home visits to wealthy parents.”

By that logic, childless people shouldn’t have to pay for schools at all, and people who don’t drive shouldn’t pay for roads, and people who don’t use the library shouldn’t have to pay that tax, and people who don’t go to the Zoo shouldn’t pay that tax, and so on. Many tax-supported services are seen as benefiting society as a whole, so society as a whole pays for them. If you disagree with that premise, you have a lot more to complain about than Parents as Teachers.

Comment by Jakey — January 29, 2010 @ 2:30 p.m.

There are alot more grounds for rejecting your ideas on PAT than you give credit for in your comments above. Once again, PAT is an extension of the public school system. They are helping children to be as prepared as possible for grade school. Why not get the teachers involved early with identifying problems instead of when they are eight or ten and fallen even further behind their peers. Taxes are paying for it one way or another, regardless of household income. Schools are obligated to educate these kids, regardless of their problems, and it is all tax payer dollars. Let’s get these kids help when it is the least expensive and at the same time the most effective for the greatest return on the taxpayer dollars.

I really recommend that Sarah researches PAT further to truly understand what the program is and the people that provide the services. I also recommend she look into what general pediatricians practice in their offices, much less the rates they charge.

Comment by DaveG — February 4, 2010 @ 9:00 p.m.

As you know if you’ve read my previous posts about education, I have a lot of problems with the public school system and am opposed to extending it. Any state intrusion into parenting and families could be justified as another extension of the public schools.

But, many people do not share my views and would be happy for the public schools to be involved in their children’s lives from birth.

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — February 5, 2010 @ 7:13 a.m.

Also, some aspects of public schooling are means-tested, such as free lunches. Most public schools serve free lunches only to children from low-income households. Other children are expected to pay, or bring their own lunch.

Does that mean that upper-class children don’t need lunch or couldn’t benefit from cafeteria food? Of course not. But lunches are an extra that aren’t provided free of charge to everyone.

I see home visits as an extra that should likewise be limited to needy families. I’ve mentioned that I would not much mind a free clinic—perhaps in a public school—where anyone could come get parenting advice or a vision screening. But I see no reason why those services should be sent out to a family’s home, unless the household is in dire straits.

If you believe home visits are an essential part of public schooling, you have to explain why the rest of the public schools don’t incorporate them. Why have buildings and classrooms when you could theoretically deliver the same content with daily home visits, k-12?

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — February 5, 2010 @ 7:23 a.m.

If I have to explain the difference between educating k-12 students individually in their homes and PAT, you have not done your research on the program. Home visits are not an extra. I think the PAT “Born to Learn” program would overwhelmingly fail if they get rid of the home visits. It would not be nearly as effective in a group environment at a public venue like you recommend.

I hope you also realize that there are many services PAT facilitates that are provided outside the home and in a group setting.

Once again, I really suggest you research the program at least a little. Their website would be a good place to start as it has a lot of information that I think you would find very surprising as I re-scan your older posts linked above.

Comment by DaveG — February 5, 2010 @ 7:38 p.m.

Home visits are an integral part of PAT, but the entire program is an extra in relation to k-12 education–and therefore, I think, should be means-tested.

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — February 6, 2010 @ 6:43 p.m.

Means tested or not – PAT has been, hands down, the most valuable resource for us as parents in monitoring and aiding the physical, mental and social development of our children. Our parents as teachers representative does a substantial amount of development teaching and addressing issues and answering questions that I would never have thought to even ask a pediatrician. Pediatricians are NOT early child development educators nor do most of them claim to be.
The educational development of my child is not a medical issue nor are pediatricians trained adequately in the field. The idea that our pediatrician could replace the unrivaled resource that our parents as teacher rep has been to us as parents is absurd and ignorantly asinine to say the absolute least. That would be like expecting my auto mechanic to also fix my lawnmower because both are trained to fix gasoline powered engines.

I agree that if you are not a parent, cannot be a parent, or choose not to be a parent then you should not have to participate in paying for the service. However, I myself do not condone war, I do not condone overseas funding for abortion, I do not condone taxpaid support of sports teams, I do not condone bailing out big banks and automakers, but I have to. We all pay taxes for things we not only do not participate in but in most cases disagree with. If some of my tax dollars go to help the kid next door grow up to be smarter, kinder, law abiding citizen that is less of a tax burden on the tax payers than the uneducated, stupid, drug dealing, car stealing thug then my tax dollars have been well spent.

I would happily pay far more in taxes or even fees charged for the Parents as teachers service and I dare say anyone who has benefited from the service as greatly as we have would undoubtedly say the same.

Your commentary on this issue is insultingly ignorant of what PAT actually is and the true service it provides.

Comment by Rick — February 26, 2010 @ 3:06 p.m.

January 29, 2010