Judge strikes down pre-kindergarten limits : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

RALEIGH — North Carolina cannot limit how many "at risk" pre-kindergarten students can enroll in the program, a state Superior Court judge ruled today.

Judge Howard E. Manning Jr. struck down a part of the state budget that would have limited free tuition for state pre-kindergarten services to 20 percent of those enrolled. All others would have had to pay based on a sliding scale.

"The State of North Carolina shall not deny any eligible at-risk four year old admission to the North Carolina Pre-Kindergarten Program (NCPK) and shall provide the quality services of the NCPK to any eligible at-risk four year old that applies," Manning wrote.

"At risk" generally means that a student is likely to have problems in school based on social or economic factors.

Manning oversees the long-running Leandro lawsuit, which is named for its plaintiff and in which the Supreme Court has twice found the state has a constitutional duty to provide every child a "sound basic education."

The General Assembly passed the budget this summer but Gov. Bev Perdue vetoed it. Lawmakers overrode that veto. It's unclear how much it will cost the state to comply with Manning's order.

For more on this story, read Tuesday's News & Record.

rooster8786

July 18, 2011 - 1:43 pm EDT

"At risk" is an educational term of art, but generally means that a student is likely to have problems in school based on social or economic factors.

What a bunch of Administrative mumbo jumbo. How about we first: get a legal definition of "at risk" and second: hold the parents of these little angels accountable for their "at risk" status and future "at risk" behavior?

Manning oversees the long-running Leandro lawsuit, ... and found the state has a constitutional duty to provide every child a "sound basic education." Legally, can we say what is a "sound basic education"? More administrative mumbo jumbo and grounds for liberal do gooder judges to stick it to the tax-payer...

Mr. JMS

July 18, 2011 - 2:44 pm EDT

I agree. This is another case of a liberal judge who legislates from the bench.

Interested

July 18, 2011 - 5:07 pm EDT

1) There is a definition for students considered "at risk." That it isn't provided in the article does not mean it does not exist.

2) Perhaps you could define "hold the parents . . . accountable." Exactly what do you suggest the state do? (FYI - I'm guessing that you don't realize that some of the children considered at risk are children of deployed military personnel. Exactly what do you suggest a soldier in Afghanistan do to make his/her child more successful?)

I am betting those who complain about spending $$$ on the front end (pre-K, More at 4, etc) are the very ones who complain about miscreants in high school. Very often, the students causing the most problems in later school years are merely attempting to draw attention away from their academic failures, failures that arise because these students don't have the necessary background to succeed.

July 18, 2011 - 6:09 pm EDT

I'm not talking about deployed military parent's kids. What about the parent who expects the state to raise their child? What about kids having kids? What about children being raised by grandparents? We cannot legislate or license parents, but we can get rid of the "timeout" chair AND we can teach kids, yes even as early as 4, that actions have consequences.

wctbl?

July 18, 2011 - 6:41 pm EDT

It's pretty clear these at risk kids aren't going to learn social skills at home. I don't mind spending my tax dollars to try to start them off right with the More at Four program. Hopefully stepping in will reduce the other problems you detail.

July 18, 2011 - 8:32 pm EDT

You wanted a definition of "at risk." "At risk" isn't about neglectful parenting - it is about children who, for any number of reasons, are likely to be less successful in school. It is why I used the example of children of military personnel. From the NC PreK Program FAQ page (DHHS, updated 7/1/11):

The definition for “at risk” is defined in the same way as it has been used in the past and is stated in the
2010/2011 More at Four Program Requirements:
“Eligibility for Families above 75% of State Median Income (SMI)

When a family’s gross income exceeds 75% of the State Median Income (SMI) the child is deemed eligible if
he/she meets at least one of the criteria listed below:
• Limited English Proficiency (LEP) as indicated by the family and/or child speaking limited or no English in
the home;
• Identified Disability as indicated by the child having a current Individualized Education
Program (IEP);
• Chronic Heath Condition as indicated by a health care provider diagnosis (e.g., asthma, childhood obesity,
sickle cell anemia, cancer, HIV);
• Developmental/Educational Need as indicated by the child’s performance results on a developmental
screening.

It also includes:

- Children whose family is at or below 75% of the state median income level (these children will pay a copay for services.
- Head Start or Title I children.
- Children of military servicemen and women.

The fact is you may well pay to help educate a child because the parents aren't stepping up to the plate. But what is the alternative? Not preparing these young children because their parents should have? What happens then? Then you have an uneducated adult. Then what? Nothing good - Higher crime. A community an uneducated workforce. (Not attractive to new business.) And a never-ending vicious cycle due to geometric progression.

I'm not quite certain what your comments about the timeout chair and the "actions have consequences" are in reference to. I don't see what they have to do with Judge Manning's ruling or the state paying for early education to help ensure that all children come to kindergarden prepared to learn.

Dman94

July 18, 2011 - 2:09 pm EDT

rooster, I can agree with the "at risk" comments.

However, I do feel that a "sound basic education" should be guaranteed to LEGAL students in NC. Now, as for what that term means, that could be debated until time ends and never be resolved. Suffice it to say that a person should be able to read par for his/her age, do math WITHOUT a calculator, function in society, and be employable (were there jobs to be had in NC).

gsonc214

July 18, 2011 - 4:18 pm EDT

I agree with much of your comment, but how big of a part of a "sound basic education" is a pre-k program? I was never a part of a pre-k program so does that mean I have grounds to sue the state because they failed to provide it to me? Who cares that I went on to finish at the top of my class and graduate from a major university with high honors? I really feel like pre-k education covers things that fall more under the role of parenting than government education. If we continue down the road we are going a "sound basic education" will include teaching a baby how to walk, swim and say "ma-ma" and "da-da."

July 18, 2011 - 6:47 pm EDT

It is part of parenting. But that parenting isn't happening with the demographic in question. I think it is a shame that we've structured our society to require two incomes to support a family. It is sad when basic income isn't the issue but ego. No one wants to stay home and raise the children when they can afford it. Admiittedly, the greater good of society is often served by both parents working. At some point, children need to come first to make the nation work at its maximum potential.

Shess

July 18, 2011 - 8:45 pm EDT

As a two parent income household, my child was not able to get into the Pre-K program. Her academic skills were too high. So, why is it that the children of parents that are sitting at home, and have time to spend with their kids, do not take the the to ensure their children have a sound start to their education?

July 18, 2011 - 11:07 pm EDT

It just doesn't make any sense. Children are everyone's number one asset and so many forget.

onetrickydude

July 19, 2011 - 3:34 am EDT

Children are also now "the" excuse of everyone under the sun that wants money for something.

July 19, 2011 - 7:27 am EDT

I tend to think the same way...everyone talks about the amount of money required to support a household yet many of the students that are identified as at-risk are from the same families that are supported by government checks with parents who are at home because they do not have/can not get a job. The number of hours spent at home with the children is not necessarily the issue, it's the quality of that time. The problem in today's society is the importance and responsibility of raising a child for parents has lost its focus and people think the village should raise the child instead of the parents.

GSOIG

July 18, 2011 - 9:24 pm EDT

If it is the state’s constitutional duty to provide every child a sound basic education shouldn’t there be no requirement of being at risk for this free day care service?

July 18, 2011 - 10:01 pm EDT

Those who aren't at-risk generally do get a sound basic education.

July 19, 2011 - 7:22 am EDT

I think the direction that GSOIG is going is that if the pre-k program is part of a "sound basic education" for at-risk students it should be for every student. Not allowing all students into this program, or forcing some to pay, is the same basic concept as forcing parents above a certain income level to put their kids in private school or pay a fee for using public schools. Basically they are being punished for being good parents and helping to encourage the education of their children.

news-record.com

NEWS