Essential Questions

There are are two ways to preserve and build capital. One is to invest in something that is growing; the other is to do something that reduces your future costs. Investing in early childhood is one of those magnificent investments that accomplishes both.

Chicago Parent-Child Centers
One of the most powerful studies that demonstrated the power of investing in quality early education is highlighted by The Ounce of Prevention Fund.

"Conducted by Dr. Arthur Reynolds of the University of Wisconsin, this study followed 989 students enrolled in the Chicago Parent-Child Centers until the children reached eighth grade, and a comparison group of 550 children who did not participate in the program. The study shows that young children who receive high-quality early education do better in school academically, are less likely to drop out of high school, less likely to be arrested, and less likely to repeat grades or be placed in special education services. What's more, the study shows that, in addition to the program participants’ increased earnings capacity, society saves over $7 for every $1 invested in preschool."

Two Kinds of Returns
Just as there are two ways to preserve and build capital, there are also two ways to measure returns. The first is the quantitative: the money we can count, the GPA, graduation rate, incarceration rate, etc. In each of those areas, early investment shows a tremendous return. However, there is also a qualitative return on investment that is often overlooked. These children are real people who have families, dreams and feelings. An enormously important part of early education is nurturing the most essential of all relationships with parents, fostering healthy relationships with others, and good, purposeful dreams. Quantitative measurement is important, and early education shows outstanding returns. However, when you invest in a children and their families, you are not just putting money in the bank. You are investing in something that is growing - people, who have far greater contributions to make to their families and communities than can be measured in numbers.

In recent years, the groundswell for early education and intervention has swelling on the overwhelming data that early nurture affects neurological development, emotional health, language acquisition, and even IQ. Consequently, many policy makers have drawn a direct line between early education and government involvement.

Where are the dissenters?
In a recent New York Times article, the author notes that there was at one time significant resistance to government involvement in early childhood:

In 1971, President Richard M. Nixon vetoed a bill that would have underwritten child care for everyone, arguing that the bill “would commit the vast moral authority of the national government to the side of communal approaches to child rearing over against the family-centered approach.”

According to the Times, that resistance is now diminishing for government child care and education programs.

Are there other alternatives?
It seems that for many policy-makers there is a simple dilemma with two alternatives: (1) government programs [and corresponding responsibility] for early childhood education, or (2) government inaction, which results in the continued trend of children unprepared for school. Yet a fair minded person must ask: Are these the only alternatives? Are there alternatives that would satisfy President Nixon's concerns about shifting the responsibility for rearing children from the family to the government? Could there be a family-centered approach that is consistent with the overwhelming research on the importance of early education?

Why not parents?
What would be the risks of a family-centered approach to early childhood education? Is it the lack of parent education? What if the resources currently invested in programs for children were invested in programs that enabled parents to support their children? What might be the results if parents were equipped to care for their own children? Might it not build a stronger relationship between home and school?

In a time where there is much talk about increasing funding for early childhood programs, it is wise to ask if the assumptions of those making the decisions are in fact valid.

Marian Wright Edelman, founder and president of the Children's Defense Fund, made a powerful statement this week that has significant consequences for education and society:

"Parents are their children's most important teachers and mentors, and they bear primary responsibility for nurturing their sons and daughters while keeping them safe. Yet parenting is one of the most undervalued and least prepared for roles in America." (emphasis added)

Primary Responsibility

Being responsible means being answerable for the thing with which you are charged. That parents bear primary responsibility for the nurture and health of the children means that they are answerable for using the tangible and intangible resources at their disposal to nurture their children. The two most critical factors for the healthy development of a child are love and language. In the presence of appropriate parental affection, and the respectful, loving use of words, children develop normally (unless there is an underlying disability, in which case love and language are even more important).

Most Undervalued Role in America

Parents play the most important role in any society. Period. They have greater influence over the character, competence, creativity and health of their children than anyone else. Failing to recognize this fact is to undervalue the role of parents, and as Edelman rightly notes, parenting is the most undervalued role in America.

That has two consequences. First, it means that we as a society don't hold parents responsible. We hold schools responsible for the behavior and education of children rather than those who 'bear the primary responsibility.' Second, it means that we don't support parents in their critical role. (Happily, there are excellent exceptions to this generalization, including Parents as Teachers.) Instead, we look for ways to shift the responsibility of parents to programs and institutions. Yet however well a program can perform, it cannot replace a child's most important relationship: the relationship with her parents.

Moving toward responsibility

Parents bear the primary responsibility for the nurture and health of their children. The decisions that we make have far-reaching consequences for the character, competence, creativity and health of our children. To fulfill that responsibility, we need wisdom. We need good information, and we need to use it wisely. If we are wise, we will not only use that information not only for ourselves, but for other parents, which is precisely how the network of support and accountability can and should function. And finally, we need to be prepared to give an answer for our parenting. Apart from this, the word 'responsibility' has no meaning.