The United States mandates education for its children and provides public access to that education. When a child’s formal education begins, however, depends on several factors, including the state, the child, and the wishes of the child’s parents. But when exactly we should begin providing that education is up for debate. Read on to learn about the concept of universal pre-school, and the arguments for and against it.

What’s the current status of Preschool in the U.S.?

On March 4, 2014 President Obama announced his intention to allocate $750 million for the foundation of universal, federally funded pre-school in the United States. These funds would guarantee that Pre-K would be available, but not mandatory, for all young Americans, and some research has shown that a pre-school education creates better students and more productive citizens later in life. The concept of universal pre-school is nothing new; several states and cities including New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Boston, and Tulsa have had various forms of universal Pre-K programs since the middle and late 1990s. However, many oppose these measures, saying that a pre-school education does not guarantee success for a child, making the taxpayer investment simply not worth the risk. While there are numerous studies indicating the success rates of pre-school educated children, these reports are disputed, and plenty of other reports exist that argue pre-school does not positively affect a student’s academic success later in their education. It remains to be seen whether the President will be able to garner enough support, and funds, for this educational endeavor.

What are the arguments for Universal Pre-school?

Supporters of universal pre-school highlight the long list of rewards students can reap from a Pre-K education, while arguing that future returns, as well as the influx of former stay-at-home parents into the workforce, will actually improve the economy now and in the future. Advocates point out a wide array of benefits that can stem from obtaining a Pre-K education. These include higher test scores, better emotional development, higher high school graduation rates, lower poverty rates, and the end of racial socio-economic disparity.

The jump start on learning for pre-schoolers allows them to enter Kindergarten with some pre-existing content knowledge and experience in working in a classroom setting with their peers. The end result of these benefits, supporters argue, is that these students will achieve a higher level of education, get better jobs, and contribute to the end of poverty and race-based economic gaps. Privately-owned pre-schools, while maintaining high standards, are expensive and thus seem to cater to middle and upper class families. Without access to Pre-K due to economic restrictions, many argue that children of low-income families are locked into a cycle of poverty.

The problem that remains, however, is how the government and taxpayers will pay for this type of program. Political advocates have offered popular ways to pay for universal pre-school; New York City’s Mayor De Blasio plans to tax New York’s wealthiest residents to pay for his Pre-K program, while President Obama has suggested increasing the tax on cigarettes from $1.01 to $1.95. Advocates argue that these strategies would allow the government to fund a universal Pre-K program without significant impact on the taxes of average Americans. Additionally, supporters point out the economic benefits of universal pre-school, indicating it will pay for itself and more over time.

What are the arguments against Universal Pre-school?

Opponents argue that universal Pre-K would be detrimental to quality private pre-schools. Opponents dispute the same reports that link the myriad of benefits to a pre-school education, using other reports to argue that students with and without this early start earn similar test scores, high school graduation rates, and career achievement. One of the best sources of support for this argument, opponents claim, is the failure of current federal pre-school programs such as Head Start.

Initiated in 1965 as part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society,” Head Start offers low-income families access to pre-school for their children. Within the last decade, educational professionals have been united in their acknowledgement that Head Start fails to achieve its goals of inequality-gap reduction. Advocates claim this is due to a lack of funding and the low quality of the Pre-K offered under Head Start (the pre-school teachers are not required to have a teaching degree), whereas modern universal pre-school proposals call for high-quality education with highly qualified teachers. Opponents, however, say this is evidence that federally-funded Pre-K programs fail to meet the needs of economically disadvantaged students.

Opponents argue the only way to ensure a quality pre-school education is to maintain competition in the Pre-K market, thus prompting privately-owned pre-schools to maintain high standards. Offering free, federally-funded pre-schools could potentially undercut successful private pre-schools and lower the overall standards of a Pre-K education in the United States. With roughly 45 percent of American children already enrolled in pre-school, opponents feel that the introduction of a universal pre-school program would only have negative effects for students, parents, and society.

Conclusion

Educational support is one of the most important things that our government provides for its citizens. We have accepted that young people should be in school, but how young is too young to start? And what are the benefits of providing preschool rather than allowing parents and students to make those choices? These are all intrinsic components of the debate surrounding universally-funded preschool in the United States, and while President Obama has taken concrete action on the subject, the laws are developing.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of Education: Serving Pre-School Children Through Title I

Administration for Children & Families: Federal Office of Head Start

Additional

Think Progress: Georgia’s Universal Preschool Program Significantly Improves Children’s Skills

Huffington Post: Do Right By Our Children: Enact Universal Pre-K

National Institute for Early Education Research: The Universal vs. Targeted Debate: Should the United States Have Preschool For All?

U.S. News & World Report: Why the GOP Should Get On Board With Preschool

Nation: How Universal Pre-K Could Redistribute Wealth–Right Here, Right Now

National Affairs: The Dubious Promise of Universal Preschool

Reason Foundation: The Case Against Universal Preschool in California

Heritage Foundation; Universal Preschool’s Empty Promises

Brookings: New Evidence Raises Doubts on Obama’s Preschool For All

ABC: Universal Pre-K: ‘This Whole Thing is a Scam’

Breitbart: Obama Budget Proposal Pushes for $750 Million for Universal Preschool

Huffington Post: Elected Officials Embrace Preschool, But Funding is the Catch

Scholastic: Universal Preschool: Is it Necessary?

The White House: Fact Sheet President Obama’s Plan For Early Education For All Americans

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Universal Pre-School in the United States: When Should Kids Start School? appeared first on Law Street.

The government has been shuttered for three days now, and things are already starting to look bleak.

I’ve written about how the GOP’s obsession with defunding Obamacare is really about a racist, sexist, elitist desire to keep privilege (and life’s basic necessities) concentrated among rich, white, straight men. And that’s what’ll happen if the Affordable Care Act gets defunded.

But even though Obamacare hasn’t been axed, those of us who are outside of privilege are already starting to feel the heat. While Congress engages in the world’s most irritating staring contest, government programs that disproportionately serve women and people of color are already starting to run dry.

Thanks, Hyperbole and a Half!

One of the first things to circle the drain are WIC payments. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) has been deemed a non-essential government service. That means, while the government is shut down, WIC’s doors will be closed. More than half of the country’s babies rely on WIC to receive proper nutrition, and their mothers are the ones who will be left with crying, hungry, and sick children.

I’m sorry, but how can feeding babies possibly be considered non-essential? That’s really just awful. Especially considering that Republicans added a “conscience clause” to their ridiculous, let’s-shut-down-the-government ransom bill that would cut women off from accessing contraceptive and other preventive health services.

So basically, the GOP is pushing legislation that would simultaneously result in more babies, while denying food to those who already exist. And who has to figure out how to survive in all this mess? Women. More specifically, poor women of color. I’m sure they really appreciate that, Ted Cruz.

 And it doesn’t stop there. Head Start programs, which provide early education to low-income children, might have to stop serving their students, depending on how long this government shutdown lasts. A handful of Head Start programs will get hit immediately, with the rest following suit as this game of Congressional chicken drags on. Again, we’re seeing the GOP push legislation that creates more kids, while denying education to the ones who are already here. And who has to pay the price? All the mothers who will skip work, and potentially miss out on wages, to care for their children who have been turned away from shuttered Head Starts.

And those wages are really important, especially if this shutdown lasts any substantial amount of time. As temperatures drop, heating bills will rise, and the Low Income Home Energy program — which disproportionately serves women — won’t be able to provide assistance. Neither will the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which is, once again, overwhelmingly used by women. Single mothers will have to decide between paying rent, feeding their children, or heating their homes. How can we allow that to happen?

All of this is happening because our elected Congress-people can’t — or won’t — do their jobs. This is professional incompetency at its finest, and it’s entirely unacceptable. But it also reveals a lot about our national state of affairs.

While the GOP may have started this ridiculousness with the goal of blocking legislation that would benefit underprivileged people, it’s clear that systematic inequality is already in place. Anyone who argues that racism and sexism are things of the past only needs to look at what’s happening right now to see that they’re wrong.

If racism and sexism were over, women and people of color wouldn’t be hit the hardest when our lawmakers fail to do their jobs. They wouldn’t be the ones who have to choose between feeding their children and heating their homes. And most importantly, those struggles would be making top headlines in news outlets across the country.

But that’s not the case. Women and people of color are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to this government shutdown, and they’re barely making any headlines about it. It’s no coincidence that veterans — who are mostly white and male — failing to receive government benefits has caused national outrage, while the single mothers who depend on WIC remain largely in the shadows.

As Republicans fight tooth and nail to keep women, people of color, queer people, and the poor disenfranchised, they wind up highlighting all of the ways that these communities are oppressed in the first place.

So thanks, guys. You’re making my job a little bit easier.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [cool revolution via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SHOCKING: Women Are Disproportionately Shut Out by the Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.

If you watched the news coverage, the night of Monday, September 31st felt like New Years Eve. News channels were so excited about the government shutdown that they had countdown clocks on their screens.  Bill Hemmer, of Fox News, said “I thought the sky was going to fall, but the sun came up,” while the same station’s Sean Hannity claimed that the shutdown was not a big deal to him and did not affect him mentally at all.

The question remains, what about the 800,000 government employees who are jobless and have bills to pay at the end of the month? What about a young infant who needs milk every night before going to bed? The government shutdown will also suspend special supplementary nutrition programs for women and children, such as the WIC program. The government shutdown may not affect a casual observer immediately, but it will have long term ramifications.

Does this shutdown indicate that our politicians are so ruthless and stubborn that they do not care about people losing their jobs or the children who might be deprived of the nutrition they need? According to a CBS News poll, 44 percent of Americans blame Republicans for the shutdown while 35 percent hold Democrats responsible and 17 percent blame both parties. A Fox News poll of registered voters found that 42 percent blame Republicans while 32 percent blame Democrats for the shutdown.

In March, when President Obama shut down the White House tours, critics called it, “a political game” and also blamed him for punishing innocent tourists and school groups. Now, even though most Americans think that Republicans are the reason for the government shutdown, and despite the fact that children may not be getting food, they still act impassively toward the issue.

It’s not the first time the government has shutdown; it happened before in 1995-96. The economy recovered quickly then, but the situation is not so promising this time. Our continued military interventions in the Middle East have also played a significant part in bringing this country to its knees financially, as a significant portion of our income is spent on war.

We are barely operating under our credit limit of $16.7 trillion, and yet politicians seem to behave like obnoxious children without realizing the consequences of this shutdown.

According to HIS Inc. (a global market research firm) the shutdown will cost nearly $30 million each day it continues. Millions of veterans may not receive their benefits if the shutdown continues for more than four weeks. The CDC may halt flu vaccines, despite the fact that flu season is on its way.  Tourism would be significantly affected due to the shut down of national parks and monuments. Children’s Head Start programs would also be affected and eventually close down while disability benefits  could also be interrupted.

Should we assume that the “American dream” is coming to an end and we are about to wake up to a harsh reality that being American is no longer a sign of pride? Due to the lousy, incompetent, and stubborn nature of these politicians who have been charged with a great responsibility to make this country the best place to live and a symbol of pride for all its citizens, this question may become reality.

[Wall Street Journal]

—

Featured image courtesy of [woahfrisla via Flickr]

Asim Mian

Asim Mian is a graduate of George Mason University. Contact Asim at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Government Shutdown: One Step Closer to the End of the American Dream? appeared first on Law Street.