GOP’s War On The Poor Turns Ugly, Now They’re Attacking 4-Year-Olds

GOP lawmakers are up to their stingy, no-good tactics again with their war on poor people, but now they are targeting tiny humans. In their quest to keep the masses uneducated, the Republicans in Montana are fighting to block preschool funding.

Gov. Steve Bullock (D) expressed his disgust while addressing teachers in Billings Montana after reading a letter written in August. About 50 Republican legislators signed the letter imploring Montana’s congressional delegation to reject $40 million in federal preschool grant funding. This move came even though most of those that signed the letter, actually voted for this funding to be available.

Gov. Bullock joked that he had been pretty sure it was him, and not the 4-year-olds that the Republicans hated when they refused to add a 37 million dollar proposal for a state funded preschool program in April. However, after seeing the letter, he said:

I start to worry that some of them might hate 4-year-olds too.

Here is the big thing that seems to be missing from the equation: The money would be going to cover preschool programming for children whose family income does not exceed 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Poor kids.

The excuses to NOT fund preschools, range from the “creation of government-provided ‘free’ preschools will most certainly drive existing private preschools from the market,” to claiming that public preschools are “insulting to the private providers who currently, and admirably, provide this service to willing parents.” Then of course the paranoia of the GOP at accepting “Federal Standards.” (You know, the standards that may require them to teach the children facts and figures, not myths and conjectures?)

There is already research from the Center on Education Policy and Workforce Competitiveness that shows us that funding free preschools in two other states actually raised overall enrollment in all preschools, even the privately funded ones.

The children affected by the decision to block the grant money would be those in poverty, those that would not be able to afford the privately funded schools anyway. It seems patently obvious that the GOP is more interested in keeping the poor people poor by denying them the same quality of education that their richer counterparts have, than they do making decisions based on what is best for the children of our country.


Feature image via Pixabay

 

  • http://www.smalltownmarketing.com Tom Egelhoff

    Give us a break. Spending money we may not have is not “hating” four year olds. Talk about pandering to the uninformed left.

    • Jen Froderman

      The reasons for this were not, not even a little, regarding funding - they are mentioned in the article. It is true that funding may screw everything up if the ignorant right in the House fail to fund the already existing program. What they are complaining about is that it is unfair to parents who CAN afford preschool that kids who are poor also get to go to preschool.

  • Otto Greif

    There is no reason to go to preschool.

    • Jen Froderman

      Gee, struck a nerve? I am sure you have research or factual evidence to back your claim up. I do not mean “back in my day” or any other anecdotal crap, either, real factual evidence.

      • Otto Greif

        Let’s Walk before We Run: Cautionary Advice on Childcare:

        “Michael Baker, Jonathan Gruber, and Kevin Milligan, authors of a recent
        assessment of Quebec’s childcare experiment, used the data available from the
        National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth (NLSCY) to conduct a largescale
        study in which Quebec children ages 0 to 4 are the treatment group; the same
        age children in the rest of Canada are the control. The NLSCY is an ambitious
        undertaking, organized by Statistics Canada, to survey random samples of
        children in five “waves,” the first conducted in 1994/95, the second in 1996/97,
        the third in 1998/99, the fourth in 2000/01, and the fifth in 2002/03. Each wave
        includes approximately 2,000 children. As the authors state, “The dataset provides
        information on a rich set of childcare choices as well as tracking children’s
        development, parental and teacher evaluations, test scores, and class rankings”
        (Baker et al. 2005, 19).
        The authors found that the introduction of CPEs brought about the expected
        increase in mothers’ labour force participation. What has caused controversy is
        their conclusion about the psychological effects on children:

        We … find consistent and robust evidence of negative [emphasis in original] effects
        of the policy change on child outcomes, parenting, and parent outcomes.
        Child outcomes are worse for a variety of parent-reported measures, such as
        hyperactivity, inattention, aggressiveness, motor/social skills, child health status,
        and illness. Parental interactions with children are worse along all measured
        dimensions, and there is some evidence of deterioration in parental health and a
        reduction in parental relationship quality. These are subjective measures, but the
        consistency of the results suggests that more access to childcare is bad for these
        children (and, at least along some dimensions, for these parents). (Baker et al. 2005,
        4.)”

        • Kim Serrahn

          Gee does that Canadian study apply to America?

          • Otto Greif

            Try visiting Canada sometime.

          • Kenneth C. Fingeret

            Hello Otto Greif,
            Great. Your argument is based upon one and only one study. It would be nice to see many studies due to the fact that any single study could be flawed in so many areas. If the follow up studies by other groups have the same or extremely similar results then I would give it more validity. Until that time I say it is not sufficient by itself.

          • Otto Greif

            Actually the burden of proof is on those wanting so spend millions of dollars.

          • Jen Froderman

            Investing in Our Future:
            The Evidence Base on
            Preschool Education

            Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Christina Weiland, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Margaret R. Burchinal, Linda M. Espinosa,
            William T. Gormley, Jens Ludwig, Katherine A. Magnuson, Deborah Phillips, Martha J. Zaslow

            Large-scale public preschool programs can have substantial impacts on children’s
            early learning. Scientific evidence on the impacts of early childhood education has
            progressed well beyond exclusive reliance on the Perry Preschool and Abecedarian
            programs. A recent analysis integrating evaluations of 84 preschool programs concluded
            that, on average, children gain about a third of a year of additional learning across language,
            reading, and math skills. At-scale preschool systems in Tulsa and Boston have produced
            larger gains of between a half and a full year of additional learning in reading and math.
            Benefits to children’s socio-emotional development and health have been documented in
            programs that focus intensively on these areas.

            Quality preschool education is a profitable investment. Rigorous efforts to estimate
            whether the economic benefits of early childhood education outweigh the costs of providing
            these educational opportunities indicate that they are a wise financial investment. Available
            benefit-cost estimates based on older, intensive interventions, such as the Perry Preschool
            Program, as well as contemporary, large-scale public preschool programs, such as the
            Chicago Child-Parent Centers and Tulsa’s preschool program, range from three to seven
            dollars saved for every dollar spent.

          • Bill_Clement

            I lived on the Canadian border for most of my life; my Dad’s side of the family were Canadians; what’s your point?

        • Jen Froderman

          This study is not on preschool, it is on childcare for children from children birth through 4-years-old. If you recall, 4 years of age is when preschool starts. This study was for socialized childcare for working mothers, they found it was better for children up to the age of 4 to be home as much as possible.

          From the intro to the study:

          “One reason is the dramatic rise in labour force participation over the last
          generation by mothers with young children. Another is the debate between defenders of at-home parenting
          and institutional childcare. A third source of controversy turns around results from studies of the benefits
          derived from childcare.”

    • Ron LHeureux

      That is just a ridiculous statement. Educators and studies have, for many years, shown that preschool give kid a HUGE advantage when the get to kindergarten and beyond. In California we have a statewide program call “First Five”. It is designed and funded to get children into preschool. That’s because children are able to learn more in their first five years than they ever will again. My ex-wife was a kindergarten teacher for nearly 30 years and is a strong believe in early childhood education.

      • Otto Greif

        There aren’t studies that show that.

        • Jen Froderman

          Pre-K Programs Will Reap Million in Benefits

          Economist Robert G. Lynch found that investment in high quality prekindergarten programs generates billions of dollars in economic and other benefits for the federal and state governments. The study, Enriching Children, Enriching the Nation, published by the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, shows huge benefits whether programs are universal or targeted to three- and four-year-old children from poor families.
          Enriching Children, Enriching the Nation (May 2007) - EPI.

        • Jen Froderman

          PreK Program Pays Off in Academic Development
          New Mexico’s preK initiative is paying off for its four-year-old participants in greater improvement in early language, literacy, and math development, according to The Effects of the New Mexico PreK Initiative on Young Children’s School Readiness, a study released August 2007 by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University. The research was conducted by Jason T. Hustedt, W. Steven Barnett, and Kwanghee Jung.

        • Ron LHeureux

          Ok, now your just being an idiot. I’m supposed to believe what you say despite a mountain of evidence ? Is the stat of California just stupid? It looks to me like Jen Froderman has some facts that show just how wrong you are.

    • StrangeOneClearcut

      STFU ! You are an arse.Preschool is important.Guess you must of missed it.

    • Jen Froderman

      Benefits of Preschool
      The journal Developmental Psychology has published research that confirms that Oklahoma’s pre-kindergarten program is successfully helping kids prepare for school. (Oklahoma is one of the few states to offer preschool to every four year old.) While learning gains were made by children of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds, the study found the most significant improvements among Hispanic children. Researchers made a point of noting that the preschool program was staffed by well-educated, well-trained teachers who earn regular public school salaries.
      The Effects of Universal Pre-K on Cognitive Development (2005)
      The Effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-Year-Old Children and Their Parents: Lessons for Policy and Programs (2005)
      Study Backs Benefits of Preschool (2005) - Listen to the National Public Radio story by Michelle Trudeau.

      • Otto Greif

        Head Start Impact Study, Final Report:
        “Despite the early, positive, cognitive effects, subsequent direct assessments and teacher ratings show only weak evidence of an impact and only at the end of 1st grade. There was only a single remaining increase in language skills for the 3-year-old cohort and for the 4-year-old cohort in 1st grade. These impacts were on measures of oral comprehension and receptive vocabulary for the 3-year-old and 4-year-old cohorts, respectively. This pattern of limited cognitive impacts in the school years may suggest that the magnitude of the initial cognitive impacts may not have been sufficiently potent for the early gains Head Start children made to be sustained as they developed and moved into the elementary school years.

        …this report finds that providing access to Head Start has benefits for both 3-yearolds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, as well as in the social emotional domain for 3-year-olds only. However, averaging across all children, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits…”

  • Smidnite

    Protect the fetus, reject the child.

    • QuantumVirus

      That’s right. They don’t see the whole picture. It’s not that they are evil. They are just brainwashed idiots.

  • Kevin T

    Conservative reactionaries think that all government funding of programs which don’t directly benefit rich corporations, the NSA and the M.I.C is a waste money.

  • Virginia in Barre Town

    Keep them poor and stupid: more fodder for the endless wars, more grist for the mills of industry, more slaves for the for-profit prisons. Good old GOP, they never disappoint, do they?

  • QuantumVirus

    It’s obvious that they feel this part of them, after being dominant for so long, that either it is their way, or no way. It’s a police officer attitude. If they can’t twist it so that “they” get something out of it, it is worthless to them. The problem is they don’t see the picture. If you help the so called “poor” you will help yourself. That’s right rich people. I’m talking to you. Think of it as an investment in the overall quality of life for people in America. The benefit’s will reap themselves several times over.