This looks like a bad deal all around, especially
since the $405 million necessary to keep these kids in preschool is a tiny
fraction of the $4 billion we give to oil and gas corporations each year
through tax breaks.
In case anyone thinks that taxpayer subsidies for
Exxon and BP are a better value for America than investing in early childhood
education, here are a few reasons why they are wrong:
-Early childhood education pays for itself. Studies
show that high-quality early learning programs pay a return of $7 for every $1
invested.
-Kids who attend Head Start have higher literacy
rates, better cognitive skills, and fewer behavioral problems than kids who
don’t attend these programs.
-Kids who attend Head Start are less likely to be in
special education and more likely to graduate from high school.
-Head Start programs provide kids with essential
dental, nutritional, and medical services so that they are healthy and ready to
start school.
Given such advantages—and the fact that Head Start
programs currently serve only half of all eligible children—the argument should
be: Why aren’t we investing more in early childhood education programs?
President Barack Obama has proposed to do just that.
His Preschool for All initiative would expand enrollment in high-quality
preschool by building on state-funded programs and expanding their capacity
with matched federal dollars. And he is not alone in recognizing the importance
of early childhood education.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce—hardly an ally of
President Obama—sees investments in early learning as critical for both the
business community, which needs high-skilled workers, and a strong economy,
since middle-class workers spend money to keep the economy humming. What’s
more, red states such as Georgia and Oklahoma have large-scale public preschool
programs that benefit their entire states.
Like so many political battles these days, the gap
between bipartisan support for preschool programs and cutting 57,000 kids from
Head Start defies logic and common sense. But then, the belief that slashing
such programs will somehow strengthen our economy makes no sense either. It’s
like training for a heavyweight match by starving yourself.
When Congress comes back from recess, it will face
many daunting tasks, including the need to agree on a spending deal so that the
government doesn’t shut down when the new fiscal year begins in October. Many
Republicans insist that any spending deal must maintain the sequester cuts,
while most Democrats insist on dropping them. Democrats say that the sequester
cuts have slowed down our economic recovery. What’s more, they argue,
conservatives’ belief that austerity measures heal the economy has been proven
spectacularly wrong—just look at countries such as Greece. Besides that, we
have already reduced the deficit by more than $2.4 trillion over the past three
years.
Members of Congress are slated to work for a grand
total of nine days during the month of September. In any other business, that
would make them part-time employees, ineligible for health insurance and a host
of other benefits that they currently receive. Even so, I would bet that the
57,000 children who are unable to go back to Head Start this month would gladly
take nine days of school over none.
About the author: Sally Steenland is Director of the
Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress.
Steenland, a best-selling author, former newspaper columnist, and teacher,
explores the role of religion and values in the public sphere.
This article was published by the Center for
American Progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment