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.

Do you guys remember the Occupy Wall Street movement?  Do you remember how annoying they were? I’m glad that’s over!

They made (some) salient points, though. Chief among their complaints was the fact that, according to various financial reports, more than one-third of the nation’s wealth was controlled by one percent of the population. “Impossible!” we all screamed, “America is built on the potential of financial success through hard work!”. The OWS movement came and went, but many of the problems remain unresolved. The one percent remains the one percent, and those of us in the 99 percent maintain hope that we’ll invent the next Instagram, Microsoft, or Kardashian-esque empire to join their ranks. We all aspire to one day work for ourselves, join the upper echelon of American wealth, and vacation with Jay-Z and Beyoncè.

The distribution of wealth and prosperity is not just uneven for individuals- the same rules apply for corporations.  A recent Policymic post has exposed a fact about which I was previously unaware: many of the most popular brands in America are actually owned, in some capacity, by ten companies. These ownerships are not outright; many of the business arrangements arise as part of majority stock ownership, distribution deals, and mergers.  The same article shows that there are six companies responsible for the majority of media output in this country, and that four financial institutions control our banks.

That sh-t cray.

It’s an interesting, and even insane, premise to consider: so few people actually control so much.  In theory, there are twenty-ish CEOs that have the American economy under marionette strings. They’re the business illuminati, if you will. This statement is even scarier when you consider how much corporate money controls politics.  Many of the people that we elect to represent our interests are eventually bought and sold by private interests that do not always directly align with the desires of their constituents.  It’s hard to stick to your political promises and not become a Washington insider when your reelection campaign coffers are empty. Money wins elections, after all. NRA, anyone?

The power struggles in this country are real.  There is no problem with capitalism, and for many the drive for financial and professional success is the fuel they need to continue to work hard. That drive is premised on the possibility of one day being the boss.  It’s tougher to become the boss when there are only twenty open positions.  So much money and power in so little hands is scary.

An Antitrust Primer

Antitrust is an area of law that seeks to guarantee competition between businesses for the benefit of the public.  Antitrust law also endeavors to regulate mergers and acquisitions of businesses so that mega-corporations are not formed to unfairly dominate their respective industries.  The premise of antitrust is basically that competition is a good and necessary component of running a business, and attempts to lessen competition in an unapproved manner are illegal.

There are various reasons why a lack of competition is problematic in modern business.

The first goes back to the old phrase of “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Let’s take a moment to remember the history of our dear nation, shall we?  This country was founded by people who were escaping monarchies and a government where the power was vested in one person; they understood what too much power can potentially do to a country. If we subject those who govern our country to these standards, why would our businesses be treated differently?

They’re not.

When it comes to these businesses, the same premise applies.  If one company controls everything, we all lose. How else would their business practices be regulated?  Concerns from consumer prices to employee wages wouldn’t be countered by an industry standard, because the one company is the industry.

Second, competition spurs economic growth. If Samsung didn’t exist, Apple wouldn’t be a powerhouse.  There wouldn’t be a Magic Johnson without a Larry Bird, a Britney without a Christina, and a Starbucks without a Dunkin’ Donuts. You get where I’m going with this, right? Additionally, this country is still experiencing the effects of an economic downturn, and the last thing on the agenda of any political party is the slowing down of financial recovery.

This is especially true because America has been down the mega-corporation road before, and it didn’t end well.

The Lessons of Bell Atlantic

In 1974, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T.  In U.S. v. AT&T, 552. F.Supp.131 (D.D.C. 1983), the government sued AT&T to stop what they believed were monopoly-like business practices. The allegations were that the corporate structure created unnecessary barriers to competition, which is in direct contravention of the Sherman Act. The main goal of the Sherman Act is to establish and protect unobstructed competition between businesses as a national standard. Specifically, the complaint stated that 6conspiracies sought to “restrain trade in the manufacture, distribution, sale, and installation of telephones, telephone apparatus, equipment, materials, and supplies…”. The D.C. Circuit found that, at the time, AT&T was the largest corporation in the world. The resolution of the case created twenty-two smaller “operating” companies, mostly allocated by region.  The forming of these operating companies divests and divides the power from one major body, thus creating competition and reinforcing the tenets of the Sherman Act.

Why It Matters

Obviously this situation is significantly different, but it is sure to raise some red flags.  It’s a slippery slope, no?  With U.S. v. AT&T, there was one company dominating an industry.  The same result would not occur in the current scenario.  Here, there are ten companies controlling hundreds of consumer goods, six companies running the entertainment industry, and four banks commanding our financial institutions.  We are a merger away from a mega company stomping away at the competition. In other words, we’re monopoly-adjacent. These companies need to be closely scrutinized.  It’s the same reason that the proposed merger between US Airways and American Airlines has been scrutinized so closely as of late.  A superpower is not beneficial for the expansion of business, and it’s not in the best interests of the country.

[Policy Mic]  [Case Text] [New York Times] [Deal Book]

—

Featured image courtesy of [FamZoo Staff via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Problem of Too Much Power in Too Few Hands appeared first on Law Street.