Putting the 'nanny' in 'nanny state'
For most 4-year-olds, early childhood education means any one of a number of nurturing preschool experiences: a small neighborhood program, a church-based day care, a private preschool or early education at home. Parents have many options.
At the same time, more parents work from home and take care of their children. Many mothers want the most time possible at home in their children's early, formative years. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, 80 percent of mothers working part-time indicated some type of work-home balance was the ideal scenario; only 5 percent preferred full-time work.
Bear all this in mind as the Obama administration pushes for universal, taxpayer-funded preschool for all.
While roughly 42 percent of 4-year-olds are enrolled in government preschool programs (state-run or the federal Head Start), 58 percent receive their earliest learning and care from private preschool providers, church-based programs and — most important — parents, grandparents and other family members.
Three-quarters of Virginia 4-year-olds are in the care of private providers, home-based centers or family care, not government programs.
The administration envisions the exact opposite: universal, taxpayer-funded government preschool for America's children, which President Obama first outlined in his State of the Union address and recently touted again at a Georgia preschool.
The administration wants to increase federal spending to fund expansion of state preschool programs to serve more 4-year-olds and to “enroll more infants, toddlers and 3-year-olds” in Head Start and Early Head Start.
Such expansive, big-government preschool programs put the “nanny” in “nanny state.” And naturally, the administration has not revealed the price tag to taxpayers.
Growing government preschool and child care is bad policy. With so many 4-year-olds already enrolled in some preschool program, and with taxpayer-funded programs such as Head Start available to low-income families, the president's proposal will effectively subsidize middle- and upper-income parents already paying for preschool and child care on their own, with no new benefit to poor families.
If existing government programs are not meeting poor children's learning needs — and evaluations of Head Start show they aren't — policymakers should consider reforming existing programs, not intervening more.
Head Start, created in 1965, has utterly failed the low-income children it was designed to serve. A scientifically rigorous evaluation of more than 5,000 children found Head Start had little to no impact on cognitive, social-emotional, health or parenting practices of participants. On a few measures, access to Head Start had negative effects on children.
Yet taxpayers spend $8 billion per year on Head Start. If the federal government continues to fund the program, states should — instead of relegating low-income children to underperforming Head Start centers — at least be allowed to make their Head Start dollars portable, following children to a private preschool provider of choice.
Research data demonstrate that large-scale preschool programs fail to live up to their promises. Georgia and Oklahoma have not seen children benefit as a result. Oklahoma's fourth-grade National Assessment of Educational Progress reading scores actually declined with universal preschool.
Children should have the best early education opportunities possible. But the administration's proposal shifts the focus away from the low-income children most in need to a broad day-care subsidy for middle- and upper-income families.
To achieve excellence in early education, we must abandon the presumption that preschool for all is preferable to family care. Instead, we should work to ensure that existing preschool programs meet the needs of the most disadvantaged children, rather than looking to Washington to raise our children.
Lindsey M. Burke is a fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Clues to Chief Justice John Roberts’ thinking on new ObamaCare case
- Pirates enter Plan B with Martin off market
- For Steelers, a fight to finish for playoff berth
- D.C. charges woman over armed protest
- Starkey: No explaining Steelers, AFC North
- Pitt beats Syracuse, snaps 3-game losing streak
- Islanders outwork Penguins to sweep back-to-back meetings
- For Pitt men’s basketball team, trouble in paradise
- Shooting victims live with bullets to survive, thrive
- Leak of grand jury information could cost Attorney General Kane
- Egypt’s beleaguered tourism industry bounces back