<<  <  >  >>

Page 21

Conclusion

Whether or not early intervention enhances a child's

development, the government should remain neutral with

regard to the provision of early intervention programs.

The state should not encourage early intervention programs

by subsidizing them, nor should it, on the other hand, dis-

courage early intervention programs by tinkering with the

tax code to favor stay-at-home parenting.  Put simply, it

is not the province of the state to educate young children.

To be sure, the provision or funding for early educa-

tion programs by the federal government cannot be squared

with the notion of a national government whose powers are

enumerated and thus limited by the Constitution.  But

equally important is the recognition that few issues are

more important or personal than a young child's well-

being, including her early education.  You don't need a

Ph.D. in political science to understand that parents, not

535 politicians in Washington and a handful of local offi-

cials, are best equipped to make decisions about early

education--decisions that require keeping the unique needs

of each child and family in mind.

Philosophical principles aside, the failure of pre-

school and early intervention programs to benefit disadvan-

taged and mainstream children should prevent legislators

from funding and adopting universal preschool programs.

After 40 years of research and experimentation, there is

ample evidence that early intervention, and preschool edu-

cation in particular, does not benefit disadvantaged chil-

dren in any meaningful or lasting way.  In addition, leg-

islators must be mindful of the evidence presented by

Zigler and Elkind among others that early schooling can

actually be harmful to middle-class children.

Perhaps the greatest hazard is that government endorse-

ment of preschool programs leads well-intentioned parents

to believe that the programs will make a positive differ-

ence in their children's lives.  Trusting the government,

those parents forgo other opportunities that might actually

improve their children's long-term outcomes.  And that is

the real loss.  In 1987 Edward F. Zigler explained:

This is not the first time universal preschool

education has been proposed. . . . Then, as now,

the arguments in favor of preschool education

were that it would reduce school failure, lower

drop-out rates, increase test scores, and produce

a generation of more competent high school gradu-

ates. . . . Preschool education will achieve