Why public preschool?

Bergen Health & Life is not normally on my reading list. However, when the cover of the Holiday 2006 edition of this free, advertisement packed glossy magazine promised predictions on the future of Bergen County from nine local "luminaries," I couldn't help but pick it up. While many of the "predictions" were more like reflections on the current state of the art in drama, fashion, and other such lighter pursuits, one particular item caught my eye. In it, Bergen County Superintendent of Schools Aaron Graham opines on future development in public education in Bergen County, and says the following:

Expect to see a growth in early-childhood education. Locally, more districts are putting preschool programs in place; in five years, most will have an active half-day or full-day program. Many districts in our poorer, largely urban areas already have an early-childhood education requirement, but I think all schools will soon mandate it. Districts with greater needs will fund these programs with state aid; those that receive less outside money will rely on their own local taxes. The research points to the dramatic development children have prior to entering school -- the earlier we get them, the more positive an impact we can make.

The prediction may prove to be 100% accurate. Dr. Graham, of all people, ought to know. But even as increased enrollment in preschool programs would probably be a good thing for our youth and a boost to the educational performance of our schools, it is far less certain that state or local government should foot the bill for this.

From a fiscal perspective, one could certainly have chosen a better time to expand the definition of public education to include the early childhood years. Simply put, there is no money for this. Districts are having a hard enough time furnishing a quality education to school-age children at the current level of funding, and taxpayers are already shelling out about all they can right now. The large sums that would be required to add a whole new layer of infrastructure and personnel to the public education system in order to expand it to three and four year olds are not there for the taking.

But even if we could pay for it, should we? Should early childhood education be mandated, even if it is widely considered beneficial? If it should be mandated, or even just strongly encouraged, should the cost be borne by all taxpayers? I have a hard time seeing why the answer to any of these questions should be yes.

Sure, a Western European social democrat would not think twice about tossing this benefit onto the pile of others that the government (often inefficiently) provides. If one doesn't dream of abdicating ones decisions to an enormous nanny state, it becomes much harder to argue that preschool programs should not be the sole responsibility of parents or guardians. Yes, Dr. Graham, research does indicate that early childhood education is helpful. Great. So is proper nutrition, good hygiene, and sufficient exercise. If I raise a child, it is my responsibility to ensure that the child gets all of those things. Why shouldn't it also be my responsibility to see to it that my child is prepared to enter school?

There is no fine line or slippery slope here. Publicly funded primary and secondary education is there to ensure the continuance of our democracy and promote self-sufficiency and civic responsibility among citizens. It may be beneficial to attend preschool prior to undergoing mandatory schooling, but it is only incidental to accomplishing the objectives of public education. If you want your child to have this advantage, you ought to pay your own way or find someone else to help you do it. No, your child should not be penalized if you truly, honestly cannot afford both food and shelter and early childhood education. Everyone else should decide if it is truly a personal priority and budget accordingly.