PORTLAND, Maine — Companies such as Bath Iron Works and Hannaford are part of a newly launched Maine Early Learning Investment Group pledging to help raise millions in private money to beef up pre-kindergarten learning in the state.
James Clair, CEO of Goold Health Systems and chairman of the new group, spoke Thursday morning at a news conference in Portland to celebrate the release of the third installment of the influential “Making Maine Work” report, which ties early childhood education to economic prosperity.
Clair said the nascent coalition, which held its first meeting Wednesday, is not ready to announce a firm fundraising goal, but told reporters the figure would be “in the millions — it’ll be seven digits.”
Previous editions of Making Maine Work, both in 2010, touted the importance of investing in Mainers’ quality of life and the public university system. The third in the series, released Thursday, is titled “Making Maine Work: Investment in Young Children = Real Economic Development.”
All of the Making Maine Work reports were compiled in joint efforts by the Maine State Chamber of Commerce and Maine Development Foundation. The latest installment in the series was funded by The Bingham Program and the Sam L. Cohen Foundation.
“We start investing in our people too late,” Chamber President Dana Connors said during the Thursday event, held at MaineHealth’s Portland headquarters. “We need to invest in our people starting at birth. Waiting to invest in our people when they enter the K-12 system is too late for too many.”
Connors cited the oft-referenced statistic that 85 percent of a child’s core brain development takes place before age 3, and suggested that building a sharper and more adaptable work force down the road will take a focus on the youngest Mainers now.
Laurie Lachance, president of the Maine Development Foundation, said every dollar spent on pre-kindergarten education yields as much as $16 in returns, coming in the form of future higher income levels for the students as well as reduced public spending on remedial education, welfare and law enforcement.
Thursday’s report called for the expansion of access to early childhood education programs statewide. Lachance said 21 percent of children under the age of 5 in Maine live in poverty, and only 20 percent of the state’s 4-year-olds attend public pre-kindergarden. She said just 30 percent of Maine children eligible to take part in Head Start, a federally funded early childhood education program, are so enrolled.
Rich Donaldson, an L.L. Bean executive and Maine Development Foundation board chairman, said stakeholders on hand Thursday propose modeling pre-kindergarten expansion efforts after the program used by the Bath-area Regional School Unit 1.
In that school district, which serves five southern midcoast municipalities, public education dollars are used to support local private preschool operators that meet certain quality standards, in effect pulling the network small operations under the RSU 1 umbrella to provide districtwide pre-kindergarten services. The arrangement helps dull push-back from private preschool operators who might otherwise be worried expansion of public programs would steal their customers, Connors said.
The latest Making Maine Work report also calls for all Maine child care providers to meet high state standards for quality, in part through creating tax incentives for such providers, as well as families and businesses which use them.
The study includes additional recommendations to launch a statewide outreach campaign associating early childhood investments with economic prosperity, and increasing investment and strategic planning for pre-kindergarten programs. Lachance said state leaders should apply a “global” approach to education in Maine, taking into account that investing in pre-kindergarten programs will drive down the amount spent on remedial programs throughout the rest of the systems.
As for investing in early childhood education, Clair said Thursday his new coalition of businesses is prepared to do its part. The fledgling Maine Early Investment Group — which includes representatives of architecture and engineering company WBRC, accounting firm Baker Newman Noyes, Bangor Savings Bank, Gorham Savings Bank and his Goold Health Systems in addition to BIW and Hannaford — is launching a fundraising push in the coming year, with a to-be-named goal in the millions of dollars.
Clair said the raised money will then be distributed for early childhood education projects proposed around the state.
Furst if all, editing the spelling of words, especially “kindergarden,” would be a good thing to do.
Next, it seems that the name Goold Health Systems was just in the news a couple of days ago, having the distinction of being given $35.6 million via a loophole, and that Joseph Bruno, then House minority leader, was the CEO and president at the time. So, are we to believe that this organization is to be commended now for using ill-gotten taxpayer money to establish pre-kindergarten education?
This is simply an extension of Walter Mondale’s Humanist Manifesto II plan from the 70’s to get all children in daycare, “because their parents are not capable of caring for them.”
Perhaps our “leaders” believe that the rest of us have no reading ability or remembrance of facts.
I think the news article the other day was intended to make it look like these companies were “given” taxpayer money, but the money wasn’t a gift. These companies received business from the state, which is another matter altogether.
Thank goodness for this effort. Helping preschool facilities to provide a good beginning is good, however, we have so many children who do not attend any preschool who will be left behind. I think we need to get the word out that the parents of these children whose parent(s) are not working that they should bring their children to preschool facilities. Everyone needs to get involved in this effort.
But you guys told me these corporations where evil and they stole our money and,and,and….
I believe that these folks have all good intentions. And like everything else, the devil is in the detail. I wonder how many of these companies and organizations have actually spent time learning what specifically is taught in a pre-K program? Do they know that there is no identified curriculum for pre-K but rather each public school that offers this program must develop their own? Some are very good and are providing amazing results. Some are providing a play group so that mom and dad don’t have to pay for childcare but the kids aren’t learning anything.
And let’s talk about the federal subsidized Head Start program that the story talks about. Could it be that the 70% of the students that aren’t enrolled have parents that don’t feel this program is in the best interest of THEIR child. It is a good program for those it was intended for but with the federal subsidy, it has become a model for public schools who want to say they have a program but don’t want to, or can’t, pay for the right kind of program for them. The school officials KNOW that it isn’t the right program for their kids but the dollar is making the decision. Further, do these fund raisers know that in Head Start, teachers aren’t allowed to track progression through a report card. It might have a negative effect on their self esteem. Public Pre-K programs DO have a report card system. Head Start is not allowed to celebrate ANY holidays in the class. All books with anything in them about Christmas, Halloween, 4th of July, etc. have to be removed from the class. They might offend someone. In order for your child to be accepted in the Head Start program, the parent must divulge all of their personal financial records. Ya think maybe that has something to do with 70% not being interested? They have to sit through an interview and answer questions like, “Have you ever seen your child eat their own poop?” The Head Start Program is a federal program and you can only imagine what standards they have put in it in order to not offend ANYONE. It really is a good program to help those it was intended to help; those in deep poverty who need a jump start to help them when they enter the school system. But it isn’t the answer for providing a public Pre-K program.
This initiative APPEARS to be similar to other attempts. Our kids aren’t performing the way we would like them to so let’s throw money at it and solve the problem. How about we spent some time first in figuring out why the kids aren’t preforming better and work at fixing that.
This is a great effort, not just for educating our children, but programs such as this have a huge potential to boost our economy as well. Today’s economy demands that unless a family is in the top percentage of wage earners, both parents must work to earn a livable wage. Many parents WANT to go out and work, but they can’t afford the daycare for one or more children. (Our family pays more for daycare for 2 children than we do for our house and car payment combined.) It is even harder to find quality daycare, which usually has lower teacher to student ratios and therefore is more expensive. It is time to restructure how early childhood education is funded. As cited in the article, it is an investment which yields outstanding returns. Completely aside from the returns cited in the article, those families who want to work and cannot afford childcare are likely on some sort of public assistance, such as MaineCare, foodstamps, WIC, LIHEAP, etc. Enabling them to get out into the workforce by making early childhood education more affordable will save taxpayer dollars as those families will have reduced need and eligibility for those programs as their income increases.
As for families who are eligible for Head Start and do not participate, I know that many facilities are only half-day programs, allowing for 4 hours of care. I don’t know many jobs that a parent could work with only a 4-hour window between dropping off and picking up their child(ren). Also, regardless of the quality of a program, there will be some families who choose not to participate, just as some families choose to homeschool. That is not necessarily an indication of the quality or benefit of the program.