Clinton's Hostile Preschool Takeover

[GaryC 7]

Clinton's Hostile Preschool Takeover

By DARCY OLSEN AND BRUCE FULLER | Posted Friday, July 20, 2007 4:30 PM PT

Sen. Hillary Clinton ignited few fireworks, speaking before the nation's largest teachers union over the July 4 holiday. But one proposal is proving explosive: state-run preschool for all families.

Clinton's proposal — introduced Thursday in the Senate — would give states $28 billion over five years to incorporate the nation's 120,000 preschools now run in firms, churches and storefronts into a government-run system. The former Goldwater girl has come a long way from the western ways and neighborhood values she once embraced.

Her universal preschool idea is sparking heated debate over the back fence and in policy circles. The question is basic: How much control should the government have in raising and teaching our young children?

It's Clinton's sharp tack to the left, arguing that government should take over small, independent preschools that make this super-nanny proposal reminiscent of her ill-fated single-payer health plan.

Most Americans would agree that every child, not just children whose parents can afford early education, should have the same chance to succeed. Clinton's plan, still sketchy in design, could usefully reach blue-collar families who can't afford preschool — but it delivers a brave new world to already overburdened school systems.

It also threatens to provide welfare to the well-off, subsidizing parents who can afford preschool. Over two-thirds of the nation's 4-year-olds already attend preschool. Clinton's blueprint draws from a California initiative, crafted by Hollywood activist Rob Reiner; more than 60% of his $24 billion proposal would have gone to subsidize comfortable families. It was voted down by a 3-2 margin last summer.

Clinton now risks a hostile takeover of the $48 billion early education industry — a colorful, mixed-market blend of local centers, from Montessori programs to preschools run inside large companies.

Instead, she prefers to let a thousand flowers wilt. Her new bill would allow governors to move three-quarters of the funding through public schools which, in turn, could run effective nonprofit preschools into the ground.

Clinton's blueprint plays fast and loose with the facts, claiming that preschool would pay for itself through fewer high school dropouts and rising wages. But this promise stems largely from Michigan's Perry Preschool, a 1960s experiment that enrolled 61 severely disadvantaged children in an intensive program that bears little resemblance to today's lively preschool market.

Three recent studies, conducted with national data on more than 22,000 young children, have shown significant benefits from preschool for poor students, especially those who find their way into higher quality elementary schools. But cognitive gains from preschool quickly fade out for middle-class children; social development slows for those spending long days in centers.

Clinton's bill would direct governors to require that all preschool teachers acquire four-year college degrees. But this symbol of quality is empirically unrelated to children's developmental growth, according to eight recently published studies.

Almost three-quarters of young parents say that one parent at home is the best arrangement, according to a Public Agenda poll. Rather than taking over the preschool industry, government should empower families and companies. Nearly half of all employers already offer pre-tax dollars to help pay for child care, and a fifth of all large firms operate a preschool on-site or nearby.

Corporate efforts and tax policies that build from parents' preferences are essential. Government might also strengthen parents' purchasing power with stronger child-care tax credits. Low-income families would benefit from expansion of portable grants to choose from a variety of options.

The key is to enrich the assortment of preschools and healthy competition among them, to match the variegated ways of raising children held by America's diverse families. As many Democrats now support charter schools — to move away from a one-size-fits-all system — Clinton now sides with those who would standardize childhood.

After inching toward the political center, Clinton now veers back to the left, ignoring the neighborhood roots of child care in America. Strengthening families, work-balance initiatives and the mixed market of preschools are key steps, not a state takeover of early education.

Olsen is president of the Goldwater Institute, a think tank. Fuller, a Berkeley sociologist, is author of "Standardized Childhood" (Stanford University Press).

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...269823448986755

[Nagishkaw 510]

Commie.

[Ban Hammer 12,879]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think a better solution is a government supported program where employers would have on-site child care. I've read that it has been very successful with companies that already do so.

[Nagishkaw 510]

Anything to bring the gouvernment towards a one world order....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Anything to bring the gouvernment towards a one world order....

Strawman arguments.

[Ban Hammer 12,879]

Anything to bring the gouvernment towards a one world order....

Strawman arguments.

not at all - you're losing your choice. and know new taxes, btw

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hillary isn't a communist, any more than Bush & Cheney are fascists.

Better add that I don't much support either - but the demonisation of both sides really doesn't exactly facilitate a decent discussion of the issues.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Number 6

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Anything to bring the gouvernment towards a one world order....

Strawman arguments.

not at all - you're losing your choice. and know new taxes, btw

Nope...

...

Mrs. Clinton, Democrat of New York, will visit an elementary school in Miami today to propose her first major education initiative of the campaign: a federal fund to help states create or expand universal pre-K programs.

The program would be voluntary for states, which would be required to provide a dollar-for-dollar match and would not be allowed to reduce their current spending on pre-K, according to a summary of the plan provided yesterday by the Clinton campaign.

...

added.. (it's always good to listen to expert opinion)

Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, a professor and specialist in early childhood education at Columbia University, said Mrs. Clinton’s proposal struck the right balance by having states manage pre-K programs while involving the federal government in a much-needed financial role.

“The dollar-for-dollar match is especially key here,” Professor Brooks-Gunn said, “because it will make clear that the programs will still be run at the state level, and it will be an incentive for states that haven’t invested heavily in pre-K.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/us/polit...xprod=permalink

Edited July 24, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Longview 0]

not at all - you're losing your choice. and know new taxes, btw

What choice? My choice between no preschool for my children at all, or a public preschool system? Such a hard decision. Perhaps we ought privatize the public Kindergarten through 12th grade schools, while we're at it? Give those poor people the "choice" between no education or no education?

There'd be no new taxes needed if we simply let expire George W. Bush's tax cuts for those making over $200,000 a year; those who benefit most from a free society ought contribute the most to hold it up, after all. Calling Hillary a "communist" or a herald of some "New World Order" is flatly partisan. A millionaire woman with vast ties in the private sector (insurance companies, K-Street, Wall Street, outsourcing agencies, et al) is neither a communist nor particularly liberal. Such vacuous political rhetoric and hollow name-calling serves little purpose other than demonizing "the other side."

Granted, some American conservatives will label anyone politically to the left of Newt Gingrich a "Communist." Such inflammatory mislabeling only muddies political discourse and inhibits genuine discussion of the issues.

Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, a professor and specialist in early childhood education at Columbia University, said Mrs. Clinton’s proposal struck the right balance by having states manage pre-K programs while involving the federal government in a much-needed financial role.

“The dollar-for-dollar match is especially key here,†Professor Brooks-Gunn said, “because it will make clear that the programs will still be run at the state level, and it will be an incentive for states that haven’t invested heavily in pre-K.â€

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/us/polit...xprod=permalink

While I'm not usually a fan of Sen. Clinton's approach to public programs, her federalist state-by-state approach in this case is well-founded. A federalist approach allows innovation on the part of state governors and legislatures to address unique problems and spur innovation one might not normally find via a national approach.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Longview

[one...two...tree 2,762]

not at all - you're losing your choice. and know new taxes, btw

What choice? My choice between no preschool for my children at all, or a public preschool system? Such a hard decision. Perhaps we ought privatize the public Kindergarten through 12th grade schools, while we're at it? Give those poor people the "choice" between no education or no education?

There'd be no new taxes needed if we simply let expire George W. Bush's tax cuts for those making over $200,000 a year; those who benefit most from a free society ought contribute the most to hold it up, after all. Calling Hillary a "communist" or a herald of some "New World Order" is flatly partisan. A millionaire woman with vast ties in the private sector (insurance companies, K-Street, Wall Street, outsourcing agencies, et al) is neither a communist nor particularly liberal. Such vacuous political rhetoric and hollow name-calling serves little purpose other than demonizing "the other side."

Granted, some American conservatives will label anyone politically to the left of Newt Gingrich a "Communist." Such inflammatory mislabeling only muddies political discourse and inhibits genuine discussion of the issues.

Longview...I think I love you already.

[Ban Hammer 12,879]

The program would be voluntary for states, which would be required to provide a dollar-for-dollar match and would not be allowed to reduce their current spending on pre-K, according to a summary of the plan provided yesterday by the Clinton campaign.

...

i seem to recall some promises made about social security too....about not being taxed, etc...and we see how that turned out.

[Longview 0]

Longview... I think I love you already.

Majored in economics and history, starting my graduate work next spring on my Master's; I want to teach. It's a habit.

[Dr_LHA 3]

So from this article it would appear that the main argument against providing free Universal pre-school to children would be that rich people would also get it? Since when was that an argument against something? So we should not provide stuff to poor people because middle class people might benefit now?

So we continue with the system where rich people can afford to educate their children and poor people are ######, right? Rather than give a benefit to middle class families?

OK......

Edited July 24, 2007 by Dr_LHA

[Ban Hammer 12,879]

not at all - you're losing your choice. and know new taxes, btw

What choice? My choice between no preschool for my children at all, or a public preschool system? Such a hard decision. Perhaps we ought privatize the public Kindergarten through 12th grade schools, while we're at it? Give those poor people the "choice" between no education or no education?

There'd be no new taxes needed if we simply let expire George W. Bush's tax cuts for those making over $200,000 a year; those who benefit most from a free society ought contribute the most to hold it up, after all. Calling Hillary a "communist" or a herald of some "New World Order" is flatly partisan. A millionaire woman with vast ties in the private sector (insurance companies, K-Street, Wall Street, outsourcing agencies, et al) is neither a communist nor particularly liberal. Such vacuous political rhetoric and hollow name-calling serves little purpose other than demonizing "the other side."

Granted, some American conservatives will label anyone politically to the left of Newt Gingrich a "Communist." Such inflammatory mislabeling only muddies political discourse and inhibits genuine discussion of the issues.

Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, a professor and specialist in early childhood education at Columbia University, said Mrs. Clinton’s proposal struck the right balance by having states manage pre-K programs while involving the federal government in a much-needed financial role.

“The dollar-for-dollar match is especially key here,†Professor Brooks-Gunn said, “because it will make clear that the programs will still be run at the state level, and it will be an incentive for states that haven’t invested heavily in pre-K.â€

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/us/polit...xprod=permalink

While I'm not usually a fan of Sen. Clinton's approach to public programs, her federalist state-by-state approach in this case is well-founded. A federalist approach allows innovation on the part of state governors and legislatures to address unique problems and spur innovation one might not normally find via a national approach.

i dislike how it runs out the private schools. that's one point i was making by my pic of her - everyone's lack of choice if she has her way. nor do i buy that about the taxes on those over 200k would pay for it. i've heard that line before too.