EQUALITY OF
OPPORTUNITY FOR A YOUNG CHILD – WHAT DOES IT ENTAIL?
“No great improvements in the lot of mankind are possible, until a
great change takes place in the fundamental constitution of their modes of
thought.”
John
Stuart Mill
It was in reading this famous
observation that, I came to realize that we do not have a cohesive,
fit-for-the-times framework to address two critical questions:
What does “equal opportunity” for
a young child entail?
What portion of that should be
underwritten and provided by the state and what part left to private or
individual means?
I have chosen to address these two
questions within the historic commitment our nation made in the Declaration of
Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness – that to
secure these Rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the government.”
What exactly do these
“unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” entail? And when we say that it is to “secure
these Rights that governments are instituted among Men,” what exactly is the
government’s obligation? To do
what, for whom?
These are profound questions
which have been debated, legislated, adjudicated and written about since the
very founding of our nation. These
questions have been answered differently at different points in history. Most glaringly, the Right to Liberty
was denied for almost a century to enslaved men and women following the
Declaration of Independence. The Right
to vote was denied for many women until 1920.
It is not my intent to address
the history of the on-going debate over individual Rights.
I will try, however, to address a
narrower but, especially today, vital aspect of this question of what are the
“unalienable Rights” that should be “secured” by the government.
Specifically, I will address this
question: What do we mean when we
commit to provide “equality of opportunity” for young people as they grow up; what Rights does that entail and what
portion of securing those Rights should be underwritten and provided by the government?
At the outset, we must
acknowledge an overarching reality:
More than any other factor, a child’s development depends more on how
his or her parents foster their child’s development, including what is enabled
by their economic circumstances and educational background. Obviously, these conditions cannot in
any meaningful sense be made equal and it would be (and has proven to be) folly
to try. It is in the context of this
reality that we must strive to answer the question of what we can and must do
to provide children with the opportunity so that--as we say in the Declaration
of Independence--they are able to “pursue their unalienable Rights of Life,
Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
I submit that the Rights to which
children are entitled include an environment that is safe, good health and a
good education. These, I believe,
are basic Rights which must be secured by the government.
In this paper, I will focus
exclusively on education—specifically early childhood education.
My major contention: Quality Pre-Kindergarten Education is A
“Right” For All Children.
I believe that we have now
reached a sufficient level of knowledge and evidence to conclude that making
quality pre-K education available for all children, regardless of their family’s
economic means, is a basic Right in the same way that providing quality K-12
education for all children is acknowledged as a “Right” in our Nation. As such, quality pre-K education calls
for public funding just as K-12 education does. We have learned that quality pre-K is an essential, even
more important, part of the education continuum. We should no more fail to fund it than fail to fund
Kindergarten or the 1st or 2nd grades.
To repeat, I believe the evidence
now available clearly indicates that providing a quality pre-Kindergarten
experience must be taken as an obligation of the state just as is providing
K-12 education. While funding
streams will be shared by the federal, state and local governments, like K-12
education, the overwhelming majority of the funding will properly come from the
state and local levels.
There are four reasons why I
contend that public funding for high quality pre-K must not be seen as a “nice
to do” benefit to be implemented when we can afford it. Rather, it must be seen as a
fundamental Right, just like K-12 education. Here is why:
1.
It is morally correct: it is a fundamental necessity if all children are to have as
approximate an equal opportunity to develop as can be provided recognizing the overarching
role of the family.
2.
It is socially correct: there is no other way that our nation’s
young adult men and women, as a whole, will be able to prosper in the
competitive world of the future.
3.
It is financially smart: evidence shows that the investment
required to provide this development and educational experience will pay for
itself many-fold in lower costs (i.e. less remediation, repeat grades, costs
stemming from criminal activity and incarceration) and from higher incomes and the
taxes derived therefrom. As an
intervention, quality pre-K provides a far higher return on investment than any
other intervention in the education continuum.
4.
It is the only credible response to competitive
pressure from the many other countries which are already providing quality
pre-K education to a far higher percentage of their three and four-year-olds
than our Nation is today.
I recognize that calling for
public funding support for pre-Kindergarten education for all children as a Right
in the same way we do for K-12 education demands a very high level of support. Here is that support.
Essentially, it rests on the
overwhelming evidence that quality pre-K education has a significant impact on a
child’s development which lasts throughout his or her years of education and
life. We have evidence for this
today that we did not have 10 years ago.
In brief, here is what we know.
1.
Quality pre-K and Kindergarten education
dramatically improves Kindergarten readiness as measured on well-qualified
tests among students of all incomes.
KRA-L Scores*
By Income and Duration of Preschool Experience
No
Center- Center
Based Center
Based
Based
Program Program-1
Yr. or less Program-1+Yr.
Low
Income** 15.8 18.5 19.6
Other
Income 19.8 22.4 23.7
As
you’ll see, on average a center-based program of more than one year lifts
children
from low-income families to “ready for Kindergarten” levels.
2.
Being ready for Kindergarten dramatically impacts
third grade reading proficiency. Specifically,
research conducted in Southwestern Ohio shows that 85% of those children testing
ready for Kindergarten were reading on-grade by the end of the third grade
whereas only 43% of those children not ready for Kindergarten were reading
on-grade.
3.
This doubling of the percentage of children
reading proficiently is enormously significant because third grade reading proficiency
correlates dramatically with graduation rates. A child not reading proficiently at the end of the third
grade is four times more likely to drop out than one who is. And if they are from a poor family, they
are 11 times more likely to drop out.
*A score of 19 or better is
considered “ready for kindergarten.”
**185% of the Federal Poverty
line and below is qualifying for free and reduced lunch.
4.
Finally, high school graduation and educational
attainment beyond high school have an enormous influence on earnings and a
person’s health and success throughout life. Data compiled by the College Board shows the following as of
2011:
Median
Earnings and Tax Payments Ages 25+ by Education Level
Earnings Tax
Payment
Less
than H.S. diploma $21,000 $4,100
H.S.
Diploma $29,000 $6,400
Associate
Degree $36,200 $8,600
Bachelors
Degree $45,100 $11,400
The influence of
educational attainment goes well beyond earnings. It impacts family formation, health and the likelihood of
being involved in criminal activity.
In the latter regard, it is a shocking fact that 70% of incarcerated men
and women are high school dropouts.
Given the above facts, it is not
surprising that studies following students over several decades who received
quality pre-Kindergarten education show significant cost-effective benefits. They stem from a combination of 1) higher
incomes attributable to higher education and 2) lower costs attributable to
less special education, fewer repeated grades and lower costs in the criminal
justice system.*
Now, if everyone could afford
quality pre-K on their own or if adequate funds could be provided through
philanthropy, there might be no need for public support. That is not the case. At a cost of $6,000-$8,000 per year,
quality pre-K represents 10-15% of the median average income of about $55,000,
and for a person making $12 per hour, it represents over 25% of his or her
salary. Plainly unaffordable.
Philanthropy does help. In the Cincinnati community, for
example, the United Way funds pre-K and in-home visiting programs. Still, combining philanthropy and
existing government support, we are providing less than 30% of our population
with quality pre-K experience.**
*See “Dollars and Sense: A Review of Economic Analysis of
Pre-K,” May 2007, particularly the reviews of the High/Scope Perry Pre-School
Program; Chicago Child-Parent Centers and the Carolina Abecedarian Project.
**CEECO policy report—May 2014. See Appendix A for the impact of
poverty on enrollment and quality pre-K.
This gets down to the basic issues of moral values and financial common sense. There is no reason why a Nation
committed to equal opportunity should have children and grandchildren born into
families like my own, receive the benefit of a quality pre-K experience—an
experience which we now know significantly impacts their entire lives—while children
born into poorer families are denied that benefit. This is especially true because we have proven quality,
cost-effective pre-K programs.
*****
A few asides:
·
In providing quality pre-Kindergarten education
as a fundamental Right, there are questions that need to be answered. For example:
a.
To what extent should public support be
means-tested, providing lower support to families with higher incomes? I believe that means testing should be
a fundamental component of any system.
b.
Should public support cover both three and
four-year-olds? I believe the
answer is yes. There is
substantial evidence that two years of pre-school is close to two times as
effective as one year.
·
Pre-K education should be totally
voluntary.
·
Pre-K education is not a silver bullet. Particularly for poor families,
wraparound services providing health care for the child and his or her parents,
as well as job placement and additional education where appropriate, are
critical.
*****
In the end, what I am calling for
is nothing more or less than providing equal opportunity to a young child, as
best we can, recognizing the overriding influence of a child’s parent. In this regard, I hearken back to the
words of President John F. Kennedy as he challenged the Nation to support
legislation that eventually emerged as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Shortly before his assassination in
fall 1963, he addressed the discrimination inflicted on African-American
children.
“This is one country. It has become one country because all
of us and all the people who came here had an equal chance to develop their
talents. We cannot say to 10% of
the population that you can’t have that Right; your children cannot have the
chance to develop whatever talents they have...as I have said before, not every
child has an equal talent or an equal ability or equal motivation, but they
should have the equal Right to develop their talent and their ability and their
motivation to make something of themselves. This is what we are talking about, and this is a matter
which concerns this country and what it stands for, and in meeting it, I ask
for the support of all our citizens.”
Fifty years ago, President
Kennedy challenged the nation to give children the equal Right to develop their
talents regardless of their race.
Today we are challenging ourselves to give children that Right regardless
of their family’s income.
I hope and pray that will happen
soon. In truth, I believe it will. The evidence is too strong, the cause too
right to be denied. We must act
quickly so that future generations of young people have the opportunity which they
deserve and our Nation desperately need.
As Krista Ramsey of the Cincinnati
Enquirer poignantly writes:
“There really is a sense of urgency–of a clock ticking–for
us to get this right because the developmental windows narrow if not
close. We keep acting like we can
push a “Pause” button with young children’s learning–as if, if we get this
thing wrong, we can just put them into a learning environment whenever we like,
and all will be well. I think
people would be appalled if we stopped a young child from walking–just held him
back!–or from talking, or learning to feed himself, etc. It would border
on abuse.
There is another extraordinarily important point Krista
makes:
“Inequality in early childhood opportunities sets people up for a
lifetime of inequality: lower test
scores, fewer educational options, lower confidence, fewer career options,
lower earnings. Why on earth would
we pour so many resources into trying to close “achievement gaps” at 14 and
“earning gaps” at 25, when we ignored the inequality at the
educational/cognitive starting gate? How financially foolish.”
How
financially foolish, indeed. And
how morally wrong. So let’s get on
with it—NOW!
