Our First Meathead President?

David Weigel | May 22, 2007

This will come as a shock, so grab onto something and steady your nerves: Hillary Clinton has a rotten idea.

Hillary Clinton proposed expanding pre-kindergarten classes to serve all of America's 4-year-olds in a policy address today at North Beach Elementary School in Miami Beach, Florida, providing them with a high-quality early education that studies show leads to higher achievement and graduation rates and higher-earning careers. More than 80 percent of 4-year-olds are currently not enrolled in state pre-kindergarten programs.

"Every child - not just children whose parents can afford it - should have the same chance to succeed and to fulfill his or her God-given potential," Clinton said. "As President, I will establish universal pre-kindergarten education through a federal-state partnership, based on state flexibility, that ensures every four-year-old child in America has access to a high-quality pre-kindergarten program."

Hillary's plan would expand access to the more than 3 million 4-year-olds who are not enrolled in state pre-kindergarten programs, providing states with matching funds to devise their own programs and requiring that classes be taught by highly-trained teachers.

In other words a national version of Rob Reiner's Proposition 82, the boondoggle defeated by 20 points in the rock-ribbed conservative empire of California.

Comments

|5.22.07 @ 3:34PM|#

I sure would like to see the copy of the Constitution Hillary uses to come up with things she thinks the Federal Government should be doing.

Jerry\'s missing finger|5.22.07 @ 3:36PM|#

But who will save the 3 year olds? If we loose them at 3, how good will they perform in Pre-K? I know, free school for 2 year olds, there's a study somewhere I can quote that shows this is a superb idea.

|5.22.07 @ 3:38PM|#

Leaving aside the horribleness of the idea. . . .

Check out the tin ear on Hilary!:

"As President, I will establish universal pre-kindergarten education through a federal-state partnership, based on state flexibility, that ensures every four-year-old child in America has access to a high-quality pre-kindergarten program."

Such stilted language, such qualifiers and descriptors, such . . . somnolence.

|5.22.07 @ 3:40PM|#

It Takes the Village.

|5.22.07 @ 3:40PM|#

I find all of this prekindergarten stuff very disturbing. The underlying message seems to be that we need to get some institutional control over children as early as possible. When people like Reiner and Hillary say "than 80 percent of 4-year-olds are currently not enrolled in state pre-kindergarten programs.
"Every child - not just children whose parents can afford it - should have the same chance to succeed and to fulfill his or her God-given potential," I hear "80% of 4 year olds are currently not getting the needed state sponsored indoctrination." I find the whole thing creepy.

Chucklehead|5.22.07 @ 3:44PM|#

I remember when "pre-kindergarten education" was spelled 'nursery school'.

|5.22.07 @ 3:46PM|#

Yesterday, I was thinking that the she-beast couldn't possibly be as vile as Giuliani, but then she goes and vomits up this garbage.

|5.22.07 @ 3:53PM|#

In Post-Hillary America, village takes you!

|5.22.07 @ 3:55PM|#

I'm about to have my libertarian decoder ring taken away. So be it.

This wouldn't be a bad idea if Herr Hillary had included the guarantee of parental choice. The economists who've studied downstream effects are pretty clear that this sort of early socialization can really improve the odds that kids from the poorest and most dysfunctional households do not end up unemployed or in prison.

Some parents are so bad at their jobs that their children grow up to become burdens to us all, in addition to being fucked up human beings in their own right.

If you could start school earlier, perhaps you could even lower the age of compulsory attendance. This would be more effective from an educational point of view and a clear net increase to freedom.

|5.22.07 @ 3:56PM|#

Little girls! I am in the business of putting old heads on young shoulders, and all my pupils are the creme de la creme. Give me a girl at an impressionable age and she is mine for life.

|5.22.07 @ 3:59PM|#

dammit, in my post above I meant to say "perhaps you could even lower the age for ending compulsory attendance".

|5.22.07 @ 4:00PM|#

An equally effective and less costly approach would be to sterilize bad parents before they become parents. Equally onerous from a 'big brother' perspective too, but we're concerned with outcomes, right?

|5.22.07 @ 4:01PM|#

"The economists who've studied downstream effects are pretty clear that this sort of early socialization can really improve the odds that kids from the poorest and most dysfunctional households do not end up unemployed or in prison."


Bullshit. If you control for income and family situation, these sorts of programs are consistently shown to be a complete waste of time. Basically if the kid is from a bad home the odds are against him regardless of how much pre school he has. The feds have been funding head start for years and study after study has shown the same thing, the kids who participate have a small advantage over kids who don't initially but quickly fall right back into the pack by the time they are in the second or third grade.

|5.22.07 @ 4:02PM|#

cum hoc ergo propter hoc, eh, Hillary?

|5.22.07 @ 4:02PM|#

Look, I'm fine with whatever the new Number Two thinks we need to do to find out why Number 6 resigned.

|5.22.07 @ 4:05PM|#

Warty said, Yesterday, I was thinking that the she-beast couldn't possibly be as vile as Giuliani, but then she goes and vomits up this garbage.

Yes. I was thinking the same thing.

Hillary + Democrat-controlled Congress = taxpayers get thoroughly reamed

thoreau|5.22.07 @ 4:08PM|#

I'd prefer Rob Reiner's plan. He gave us Spinal Tap, after all.

VM|5.22.07 @ 4:12PM|#

Doktor T:

James Dobson has started a petition to have gawd retroactively take a rest on the day he created Spinal Tap!

Jay|5.22.07 @ 4:14PM|#

Commenters have covered the principle of this horrific idea. What about the practicality?

Where do you put 3 million more students?

Where do you find "qualified teachers" for these children, when we suffer from poor teacher quality in the public schools already?

How do we pay for this?

Grotius|5.22.07 @ 4:20PM|#

There is very little to no evidence that early efforts to engage children in an academic setting do anything for the children.

|5.22.07 @ 4:21PM|#

Jay -
Where do you find "qualified teachers" for these children, when we suffer from poor teacher quality in the public schools already?
It'll get you the teachers unions votes, won't it? And an increase in teachers means more unionized votes to be courted. Especially when we bundle it with an increase on spending on "education" programs in college, and an increase in support of Teach For America.

By the way, she is right. A full 50%! of 4th graders receive less than average scores on standardized tests! We should DO something about this!

|5.22.07 @ 4:26PM|#

"and an increase in support of Teach For America."

An old girlfriend of mine did that. It is really a surprisingly cheap program. She worked at an inner-city school for lousy wages and only got 10,000 in loans paid for. Fortuneately, she really is brilliant and a dedicated teacher and didn't do it for the money but I would have thought it would have paid better than that. Also, after three years the school bureaucracy sucked all of the life out of her and in quick order turned her from a do gooder young liberal out to save the world into a cynic who loved her kids and loved teaching but hated the bureaucracy and the teachers' unions so much she walked away.

|5.22.07 @ 4:31PM|#

John,
That's amazing, because that's very similar to what happened to a friend of mine, only she only lasted 6 months.

|5.22.07 @ 4:31PM|#

Also, after three years the school bureaucracy sucked all of the life out of her and in quick order turned her from a do gooder young liberal out to save the world into a cynic who loved her kids and loved teaching but hated the bureaucracy and the teachers' unions so much she walked away.

Mission accomplished!

|5.22.07 @ 4:35PM|#

Don't the Scandinavian countries trounce white American students in standardized tests, yet don't start formal schooling until 6 or 7?

- Josh

|5.22.07 @ 4:35PM|#

"Using rich data from Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, we estimate the effects of prekindergarten on children's school readiness. We find that prekindergarten is associated with higher reading and mathematics skills at school entry, but also higher levels of behavior problems. By the spring of first grade, estimated effects on academic skills have largely dissipated, but the behavioral effects persist. Larger and longer lasting(*) associations with academic gains are found
for disadvantaged children. Finally, we find some evidence that prekindergartens located in
public schools do not have adverse effects on behavior problems."
http://www.uncg.edu/eco/cjruhm/papers/prek.pdf

*Larger and longer lasting than "zero after a very short time."

|5.22.07 @ 4:36PM|#

Don't the Scandinavian countries trounce white American students in standardized tests,

No.

|5.22.07 @ 4:48PM|#

Just what American kids need; the opportunity to be raised by their peers from an even earlier age.

|5.22.07 @ 4:51PM|#

But it's so much easier to indoctrinate our comra...err..children when we get to them at such an early age!

|5.22.07 @ 4:55PM|#

Totally missing the reasoning here. The kids with smarter, richer parents are the ones that do well in life and they happen to goto preschool. The attendance of preschool, like their eventual outcome in life, is another effect from having decent parents.

|5.22.07 @ 4:57PM|#

BRAD!! NOOOOOOO!
Critical thinking and observation of causality will NOT be tolerated in Hillary's regi...administration!

|5.22.07 @ 5:04PM|#

Starting your kid in school earlier and earlier is no subsitute for taking part in their education later on. Perhaps poor folks tend to start their kids' schooling later because they can't afford nursery school, but it's the lack of involvement later on that does the damage. Of course, they're poor, and their parents probably weren't very capable either, and so on and so forth.

miche|5.22.07 @ 5:06PM|#

Some kids in TX score so poorly on TAKS that the House just voted to end the 22 year old requirement that it be passed to graduate.

Results released last week show that a record number of students from the Class of 2007 won't get their diplomas with their peers. About 40,000 - one of every six high school seniors - failed to pass all sections of the test.

Since NCLB is working so well, maybe Hillary et al should demand in utero preschool regardless of income. I can see it now: headphones on Mommy to be's stomach piping out Baby Einstein. Compulsory attendance of course. Of course, then we will get this.

miche|5.22.07 @ 5:08PM|#

I should add that my child was commended for her TAKS scores.

|5.22.07 @ 5:11PM|#

Say what you will, but I'd rather be arguing about complusory pre-school than Edwards plan of compulsury "national service".

Gilbert Martin|5.22.07 @ 5:18PM|#

"Especially when we bundle it with an increase on spending on "education" programs in college,"

You need to get the lingo down, man.

We don't call such spending spending - we call it an "investment".

Any good propagandist knows that.

Rhywun|5.22.07 @ 5:38PM|#

"... I'm glad I'm a Beta and not one of those dull Gammas ... And the Alphas are so frightfully clever, I'm glad I won't have to work as hard as them ... "

Stephen Macklin|5.22.07 @ 5:59PM|#

Hillary's to do list:

Promise to seize oil company profits - check

Change position on Iraq war - check

Pander to teachers union - check

|5.22.07 @ 6:44PM|#

Maybe we can go for the Boston UPK program.

http://educationweak.blogspot.com/2007/05/upk-boston-vs.html

"Boston preschools falling far short of goals, study says
Teacher quality, site safety faulted
By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff April 7, 2007

Boston's public preschool and kindergarten programs are hobbled by mediocre instruction, unsanitary classrooms, and dangerous schoolyards, according to a first-ever study of the programs.

The quality of instruction and facilities in 70 percent of the classrooms, the Wellesley Centers for Women study said, is inadequate to achieve the school system's primary goal: To get the children, most of whom are black and Hispanic and from low-income families, up to speed by first grade so they are as prepared as their white and Asian peers.

Leaders of the school system, which has spent $7.5 million to add preschool classes the last two years, said they found the results sobering and would launch an overhaul of classroom instruction and teacher training.

The findings of the study, which was commissioned by the school system, also are prompting questions about whether the city, pushed by Mayor Thomas M. Menino, moved too quickly to add preschool classes.

"We ought to know what we are doing, so it's very clear we're not just offering child care, but that we're adding programs of substance and integrity," said Elizabeth Reilinger, chairwoman of the School Committee. "When kids are entering the first grade, they should have a sound footing or be a step ahead, not in remediation."

Menino has touted the expansion of preschool from 38 classes in 2004 to 78 this school year as part of the city's progress in education. The school system estimates it will spend at least $20 million a year on preschool education if it meets the mayor's goal of offering free preschool for all 4-year-olds in Boston by 2010."

The researchers also found that the four-year-olds were sitting in their seats (Like K-12 children) being lectured to and responding to flash cards.

Fluffy|5.22.07 @ 6:57PM|#

Isn't this just Hillary's way of incrementing state-sponsored mass daycare?

I thought the code here was "We'll take the kids off your hands during the day a year earlier and you won't have to pay."

|5.22.07 @ 7:22PM|#

>"We'll take the kids off your hands during the day a year earlier and you won't have to pay."

Maybe it's more like "you won't have to pay as much because the childless will subsidize you."

|5.22.07 @ 7:29PM|#

Just what we need: more teachers "working" part time and starting off at $50,000 out of college. If I didn't hate kids I'd hit that in a second.

|5.22.07 @ 8:13PM|#

Mandatory pre-school makes not sense, but that is not what is being proposed.

The program would "provide access" to preschool for those that can't afford it otherwise.

If designed right, this could have an overall benefit for society giving the good-but-poor parents an option to enrich their children's education that would otherwise be unavailable.

Head Start's Lasting Benefits.

Original Article
Infants & Young Children. 18(1):16-24, January/February/March 2005.
Barnett, W. Steven PhD; Hustedt, Jason T. PhD

Abstract:
The benefits of Head Start are under increased scrutiny as Congress debates its reauthorization. How effective is Head Start, and how can it be improved? We provide a current overview and critical evaluation of Head Start research and discuss implications of this research with an eye toward informing debate. There has been a good deal of controversy over whether Head Start produces lasting benefits, dating back to its early years. Our review finds mixed, but generally positive, evidence regarding Head Start's long-term benefits. Although studies typically find that increases in IQ fade out over time, many other studies also find decreases in grade retention and special education placements. Sustained increases in school achievement are sometimes found, but in other cases flawed research methods produce results that mimic fade-out. In recent years, the federal government has funded large-scale evaluations of Head Start and Early Head Start. Results from the Early Head Start evaluation are particularly informative, as study participants were randomly assigned to either the Early Head Start group or a control group. Early Head Start demonstrated modest improvements in children's development and parent beliefs and behavior. The ongoing National Head Start Impact Study, which is also using random assignment, should yield additional insight into Head Start's effectiveness. We conclude with suggestions for future research.

INVESTING IN HEALTH:
THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF HEAD START
Kathryn Anderson
James Foster
David Frisvold1
Vanderbilt University
December 22, 2004
ABSTRACT
Head Start is a comprehensive, early childhood development program designed to
augment the human capital and health capital levels of disadvantaged children. Grossman's
(1972) health capital model suggests that early investments of this type should have lasting
effects on health outcomes. This research evaluates the impact of Head Start on long-term health
by comparing health outcome and behavioral indicators of adults who attended Head Start with
those of siblings who did not. The results suggest that there are long-term health benefits from
participation in Head Start and that these benefits result from lifestyle changes.

|5.22.07 @ 8:19PM|#

PEDIATRICS Vol. 116 No. 1 July 2005, pp. 144-152

The Brookline Early Education Project: A 25-Year Follow-up Study of a Family-Centered Early Health and Development Intervention
Judith S. Palfrey, MD*,{ddagger}, Penny Hauser-Cram, EdD§, Martha B. Bronson, EdD§, Marji Erickson Warfield, PhD||, Selcuk Sirin, PhD¶ and Eugenia Chan, MD, MPH{ddagger}

* Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts
{ddagger} Division of General Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Boston, Boston, Massachusetts
§ Boston College, Lynch School of Education, Boston, Massachusetts
|| Brandeis University, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Waltham, Massachusetts
¶ Steinhardt School of Education, New York University, New York, New York

BACKGROUND.: Clinicians, scientists, and policy makers are increasingly taking interest in the long-term outcomes of early intervention programs undertaken during the 1960s and 1970s, which were intended to improve young children's health and educational prospects. The Brookline Early Education Project (BEEP) was an innovative, community-based program that provided health and developmental services for children and their families from 3 months before birth until entry into kindergarten. It was open to all families in the town of Brookline and to families from neighboring Boston, to include a mixture of families from suburban and urban communities. The goal of the project, which was administered by the Brookline Public Schools, was to ensure that children would enter kindergarten healthy and ready to learn.

OBJECTIVE.: Outcome studies of BEEP and comparison children during kindergarten and second grade demonstrated the program's effectiveness during the early school years. The goal of this follow-up study was to test the hypotheses that BEEP participants, in comparison with their peers, would have higher levels of educational attainment, higher incomes, and more positive health behaviors, mental health, and health efficacy during the young adult period.

METHODS.: Participants were young adults who were enrolled in the BEEP project from 1973 to 1978. Comparison subjects were young adults in Boston and Brookline who did not participate in BEEP but were matched to the BEEP group with respect to age, ethnicity, mother's educational level, and neighborhood (during youth). A total of 169 children were enrolled originally in BEEP and monitored through second grade. The follow-up sample included a total of 120 young adults who had participated in BEEP as children. The sample differed from the original BEEP sample in having a slightly larger proportion of college-educated mothers and a slightly smaller proportion of urban families but otherwise resembled the original BEEP sample. The demographic features of the BEEP and comparison samples were similar. The young adults were asked to complete a survey that focused on the major domains of educational/functional outcomes and health/well-being. The study used a quasi-experimental causal-comparative design involving quantitative analyses of differences between the BEEP program and comparison groups, stratified according to community. Hypotheses were tested with analysis of variance and multivariate analysis of variance techniques. Analyses of the hypotheses included the main effects of group (BEEP versus comparison sample) and community (suburban versus urban location), as well as their interaction.

RESULTS.: Young adults from the suburban community had higher levels of educational attainment than did those in the urban group, with little difference between the suburban BEEP and comparison groups. In the urban group, participation in the BEEP program was associated with completing >1 additional year of schooling. Fewer BEEP young adults reported having a low income (less than $20000); the income differences were accounted for largely by the urban participants. The percentage of subjects with private health insurance was significantly lower in the urban group overall, but the BEEP urban group had higher rates of private insurance than did the comparison group. More than 80% of both suburban samples reported being in very good or excellent health; the 2 urban groups had significantly lower ratings, with 64% of the BEEP group and only 41.67% of the comparison group reaching this standard. Overall, suburban participants reported more positive health behaviors, more perceived competence, and less depression. Among the urban samples, however, participation in BEEP was associated with higher levels of health efficacy, more positive health behaviors, and less depression than their peers.

CONCLUSIONS.: No previous study has focused as extensively on health-related outcomes of early education programs. BEEP participants living in urban communities had advantages over their peers in educational attainment, income, health, and well-being. The educational advantages found for BEEP participants in the early years of schooling included executive skills such as planning, organizing, and completing school-related tasks. It is likely that these early advantages in executive function extended beyond education-related tasks to other activities as participants became responsible for their own lives.

The long-term benefits revealed in this study are consistent with the findings of previous long-term studies that indicated that participants in high-quality intervention programs are less likely to cost taxpayers money for health, educational, and public assistance services. The BEEP program appears to have somewhat blunted differences between the urban and suburban groups.

The results of this study add to the growing body of findings that indicate that long-term benefits occur as the result of well-designed, intensive, comprehensive early education. The health benefits add a unique and important extension to the findings of other studies.

|5.22.07 @ 8:23PM|#

American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Volume 24, Issue 3, Supplement 1, April 2003, Pages 32-46

The effectiveness of early childhood development programs*1

A systematic review

Laurie M. Anderson PhD, MPHCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a, Carolynne Shinn MSa, Mindy T. Fullilove MDb, Susan C. Scrimshaw PhDc, Jonathan E. Fielding MD, MPH, MBAd, Jacques Normand PhDe, Vilma G. Carande-Kulis PhD, MS and Task Force on Community Preventive Servicesa

Abstract

Overview

Early childhood development is influenced by characteristics of the child, the family, and the broader social environment. Physical health, cognition, language, and social and emotional development underpin school readiness. Publicly funded, center-based, comprehensive early childhood development programs are a community resource that promotes the well-being of young children. Programs such as Head Start are designed to close the gap in readiness to learn between poor children and their more economically advantaged peers. Systematic reviews of the scientific literature demonstrate effectiveness of these programs in preventing developmental delay, as assessed by reductions in retention in grade and placement in special education.

Discussion

Extant program evaluations in the field of early childhood education consist primarily of retrospective analyses of nonexperimental data. As a result, the majority of studies included in the early childhood development reviews are classified as "moderate" in quality by Community Guide criteria.[25] It should be acknowledged that study design preferences can reflect disciplinary differences in social science research methodology. An unfortunate consequence of this is that some valuable information from promising research could not be included in this review because of the absence of comparison groups-a study attribute deemed necessary by the Task Force for attributing effects to an intervention program. A useful example is a study of Head Start by the National Bureau of Economic Research. [60] This study, a retrospective analysis of nonexperimental data drawn from the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics, reports on positive long-term outcomes of interest, including educational attainment, earnings, and criminal behavior.

A strong body of evidence shows that early childhood development programs have a positive effect on preventing delay of cognitive development and increasing readiness to learn, as assessed by reductions in grade retention and placement in special education classes. Evidence of improvements in standardized tests of academic achievement and school readiness support this conclusion. A finding of insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness in the areas of children's behavioral and social outcomes, children's health screening outcomes, or family outcomes should not be seen as evidence of ineffectiveness. Rather, it identifies a need for additional quality research.

Given the complexities of human development, no single intervention is likely to protect a child completely or permanently from the effects of harmful exposures, pre- or post-intervention. Nonetheless, the strong evidence of cognitive benefits of early childhood development programs is encouraging. We expect that center-based, early childhood development interventions will be most useful and effective as part of a coordinated system of supportive services for families, including child care, housing and transportation assistance, nutritional support, employment opportunities, and health care.

|5.22.07 @ 8:26PM|#

Science 30 June 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5782, pp. 1900 - 1902
DOI: 10.1126/science.1128898

Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Perspective
Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children
James J. Heckman

Conclusions

Investing in disadvantaged young children is a rare public policy initiative that promotes fairness and social justice and at the same time promotes productivity in the economy and in society at large. Early interventions targeted toward disadvantaged children have much higher returns than later interventions such as reduced pupil-teacher ratios, public job training, convict rehabilitation programs, tuition subsidies, or expenditure on police. At current levels of resources, society overinvests in remedial skill investments at later ages and underinvests in the early years.

Although investments in older disadvantaged individuals realize relatively less return overall, such investments are still clearly beneficial. Indeed, the advantages gained from effective early interventions are sustained best when they are followed by continued high-quality learning experiences. The technology of skill formation shows that the returns on school investment and postschool investment are higher for persons with higher ability, where ability is formed in the early years. Stated simply, early investments must be followed by later investments if maximum value is to be realized.

|5.22.07 @ 8:26PM|#

All that was in response to John's

"Bullshit. If you control for income and family situation, these sorts of programs are consistently shown to be a complete waste of time."

Mike Laursen|5.22.07 @ 8:53PM|#

How do we pay for this?

When Reiner has proposed similar programs in California, the tab was to be picked up by smokers or the rich.

|5.22.07 @ 9:12PM|#

"I sure would like to see the copy of the Constitution Hillary uses to come up with things she thinks the Federal Government should be doing."

It's basically the same one the rest of us use -- all the same words, just not necessarily in the same order. Like, her Ninth Amendment has an extra "not" thrown in that allows the feds to do anything that the people or states are allowed to do, counterbalanced by a missing "not" in the Second Amendment -- "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be abridged." Small kine stuff, yeah?

|5.22.07 @ 9:22PM|#

"Also, after three years the school bureaucracy sucked all of the life out of her and in quick order turned her from a do gooder young liberal out to save the world into a cynic who loved her kids and loved teaching but hated the bureaucracy and the teachers' unions so much she walked away."

Building a libertarian majority one disenchanted ex-statist at a time! Kinda like the flip side of Ursula LeGuin's "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omela", where instead of rare souls who walk away from an almost perfect society just because it abuses one kid, we have a society where a few rare souls walk away from a government that abuses everybody.

|5.22.07 @ 9:40PM|#

Socialized (and very expensive)day care in disguise is all this is. Of course it's only expensive if you pay taxes. If you don't you gotta love the free day care. And yes, it will be 3 year olds next, and then 2 year olds and so on.

|5.22.07 @ 11:38PM|#

When they came for the four year olds,
I did not speak out;
I was but a three year old.

|5.22.07 @ 11:44PM|#

My 4 year old just finished up pre-school at a Church for $120/mo. I thought it was pretty good, and I'm an atheist. I am also pretty poor. If I could afford private preschool anyone can. And 90% of poor people probably dont mind the Jesus stuff.

Though honestly, I think he will receive a more practical education from his t-ball league ( $75/year).

The Wine Commonsewer|5.23.07 @ 12:40AM|#

I 'spose it's worth a mention that Reason is primarily responsible for the defeat of the Meathead Initiative in California last year.

It went from a can't lose proposition to a did lose proposition based on the efforts of somebody with a Rock In Her Pocket, David and Goliath fashion.

TallDave|5.23.07 @ 12:40AM|#

Ah, but Hillary won't make the mistake of letting people know how much it will cost them in taxes.

TallDave|5.23.07 @ 12:42AM|#

"And yes, it will be 3 year olds next, and then 2 year olds and so on."

Yep, only a matter of time before fetuses and then our ovaries and testes have to go to federal socialist indoctrination camps too.

The Wine Commonsewer|5.23.07 @ 12:46AM|#

NM, If Head Start is working so well why would we need an entirely new program for pre-schoolers?

The Wine Commonsewer|5.23.07 @ 12:50AM|#

Jon C, when my kids were in private school it cost less for both to go to private school than the state of Californicate spends to educate one child in public school. This was not a church subsidized private school neither.

The Wine Commonsewer|5.23.07 @ 12:52AM|#

Miche, you funny girl. I'm calling your mother-in-law.

The Wine Commonsewer|5.23.07 @ 12:55AM|#

I sure would like to see the copy of the Constitution Hillary uses to come up with things she thinks the Federal Government should be doing.

...promote the general Welfare.....

|5.23.07 @ 3:43AM|#

Topics like this illustrate what scares me most about Hillary and those who think like her: It is just a given to them that the state should become more intwined with the life of the individual as soon as possible over the widest range of areas possible. Because they're experts and know what's good for you. There are plenty of socialist countries where this line of reasoning is accepted. Can we please still keep one where it's not?

|5.23.07 @ 4:44AM|#

There are plenty of socialist countries where this line of reasoning is accepted. Can we please still keep one where it's not?

No.

|5.23.07 @ 10:39AM|#

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

|5.23.07 @ 11:05AM|#

The earlier they get them, the less attachment they will have to their parents, and the more their loyalty and love will lie with the state that raised them.

It will make it much easier to turn them into mini-informants who happily rat out their parents for expressing inappropriate thoughts.

So the Democrats are offering a choice of a candidate who likes the idea of further separating people from their kids and another candidate who wants to enslave us all for two years.

I wonder at what point the American public will stand up and tell them to go to hell. Or if it will happen at all.

miche|5.23.07 @ 11:16AM|#

TWC, go ahead call her. I am singing her praises on another blogpost so I think she'll forgive me. ;o)

|5.23.07 @ 12:01PM|#

"...promote the general Welfare....." comes right after "PROVIDE for the National defense".

It says "promote". It doesn't say "provide" (nor does it say pay for) "the general welfare".

CB

|5.23.07 @ 12:09PM|#

TWC,

"NM, If Head Start is working so well why would we need an entirely new program for pre-schoolers?"

I am not sure we do.
But there seemed to be a strange misrepresentation of Clinton's proposal...

She says..."provide access"

People respond as if she says..."mandatory preschool" and infer that the motivation is to get "institutional control" of children early on while ignoring the bulk of the data that a well designed and implemented prekinder program tends to have positive benefits in the long run (nod to FLeM for at least providing some data on the other side :-).

Expanding access to preschool is likely to have a positive benefit since early intervention gives you a bigger bang for your buck (pound of prevention and all)...this says nothing about whether or not the program is warranted. It is a difficult thing to implement a large program and maintain quality.

It just seems the debate should be about the proposal and based on the data...

The Wine Commonsewer|5.23.07 @ 12:31PM|#

NM, as libertarians we sort of frown on government provided services, particularly when the private sector already provides those services--as in pre-school.

It says "promote". It doesn't say "provide" (nor does it say pay for) "the general welfare".

CB, I, of course, agree with you. Just pointing to where people like Ms Hillary are coming from.

Miche, she won't take my calls. Must be because I have caller ID blocked.

LarryA|5.23.07 @ 1:29PM|#

This wouldn't be a bad idea if Herr Hillary had included the guarantee of parental choice.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

The economists who've studied downstream effects are pretty clear that this sort of early socialization can really improve the odds that kids from the poorest and most dysfunctional households do not end up unemployed or in prison.

We already subsidize day care for the poorest, which provides more socialization for the kids because they aren't sitting in desks watching flash cards.

But there seemed to be a strange misrepresentation of Clinton's proposal... She says..."provide access" People respond as if she says..."mandatory preschool" and infer that the motivation is to get "institutional control" of children early on

Really?

Hillary Clinton proposed expanding pre-kindergarten classes to serve all of America's 4-year-olds in a policy address today
...
Clinton said. "As President, I will establish universal pre-kindergarten education through a federal-state partnership, based on state flexibility, that ensures every four-year-old child in America has access to a high-quality pre-kindergarten program."

"All of America's 4-year-olds" + "universal pre-kindergarten education" + "every four-year-old child in America" sounds pretty close to "mandatory preschool" to me.

Mike Laursen|5.23.07 @ 2:24PM|#

The earlier they get them, the less attachment they will have to their parents, and the more their loyalty and love will lie with the state that raised them.

In a worst-case scenario, universal preschool could become an indoctrination system, but it doesn't seem likely. More likely the kids would be filled with a few random, silly ideas along with lots of juice and snacks.

I'm more worried about growth of government bureaucracies, the power of the teachers unions, and killing the private pre-school business.

|5.23.07 @ 4:08PM|#

In related news, Neu Mejican bankrupts Reason after they are forced to pay compensation for his reproduction of several copyrighted journal articles.

Dude, don't be a dick. Paraphrase - someone owns that.

|5.24.07 @ 10:58AM|#

LarryA,

Your math looks good but loses an important modifier...

"every four-year-old child in America has access to a high-quality pre-kindergarten program"

Pigwiggle-
Fair use.
A new concept to ya?

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

|5.24.07 @ 11:03AM|#

TWC,

"as libertarians we sort of frown on government provided services,"

So make that argument.
The one I saw was...this is a bad idea because preschool is a useless activity. A common theme on H&R is to see attempts to address problem X or to provide service Y as misguided by denying that problem X exists or service Y is beneficial. Those arguments require evidence. Arguments on principle (like yours above) can guide how we address problem X without denying that problem X exists.

|5.24.07 @ 12:52PM|#

Pigwiggle-
Fair use.
A new concept to ya?

Fair use isn't reproducing a work in it's (near) entirety. I'm very aware of what and how much of an article can be used in the way you did above. What you did is copyright infringement. If you want to make a point using a scientific publication, you should paraphrase the major findings and link to the original article. That's the responsible non-thievy way to quote another's work.

|5.24.07 @ 1:03PM|#

Pigw,

Those are mainly just the "free" abstracts available without subscription...with minor embelishments from the articles themselves in a couple of cases.

All properly cited BTW.

"Near entirety" ?

Look at those page numbers... a few paragraphs of an article hardly counts as "near entirety."

Review those fair use laws again...your claim that I have infringed on copyright is both wrong in substance and in spirit.