Universal pre-K's effect on the family

INDIANAPOLIS—The early childhood school debate sometimes misses the heart of the matter.

In Indiana political circles, some of the debate has been about whether the state should take $40 million in federal aid. Gov. Mike Pence said no because it would come with strings attached. Others said to take it because it’s bound to help someone.

Grants aside, what about the first three years of life, even before little ones go to some kind of semi-structured learning program? Should pre-kindergarten education be required for all? Are public schools the best place for it? Aren’t those schools already overburdened? How much can a 4-year-old learn in a seven-hour day anyway?

Zealous pre-K advocates sometimes quietly acknowledge that they aren’t sure of the answers. But their push for pre-K education with such moralistic zeal seems odd considering the uncertainty about what really is best, and for which families.

The early childhood push originally was aimed at at-risk children, those growing up in homes without enough sophisticated adult talk or missing parents who would know how to prepare them for school. But sometimes advocacy slides more toward universal pre-K education that’s supported by taxes.

Yet skeptics point to studies suggesting that early childhood programs work well when teachers only have a few students and parents receive special training. A less-intense approach won’t necessarily help students in the long run.

The Shepherd Community Center in Indianapolis has been helping at-risk families for several years, with an emphasis on Christian faith. Its director, Jay Height, thinks parental training is a vital component in what they do with families that would be considered at-risk and potentially stuck in poverty.

“I don’t think there is one magic pill,” he said. “Not every child needs pre-K. Some get it in the home. We try to help the whole family because the family has the greatest influence. It can’t be about outsourcing the parental involvement.”

Jim Strietelmeier works with at-risk families through Neighborhood Fellowship in another low-income area of Indianapolis. He’s zealous for helping families in need but thinks the pre-K campaign has gotten carried away.

“I would be against universal preschool because it feeds into an American greed that will eventually destroy family relationships,” he said. “Policy should be geared toward parents educating children in those pre-K years, to build family responsibility. When you detach children from familial relationships, you have an increase of psychological problems.”

As a foster parent, he knows that some young ones should be removed from the home. But he is wary of the broader push away from family. “Parents nurturing children will prevent the decay of society,” he said. “We are tearing at family fabric when we separate children from parents.”

These voices of caution come from people helping at-risk families. They help explain why Gov. Pence is reluctant to chase every federal dollar.

Indiana state Sen. Luke Kenley has been a skeptic, too. As the chairman of the state Senate Appropriations Committee, he noted that the state already spends $115 million a year for Head Start, plus $200 million in childcare. “The academic results are disappointing in terms of moving the needle,” he pointed out.

From a policy standpoint, he added, “When does the family have an obligation and responsibility?”​