Universal Pre-K. Yes Or No?

It's part of Barack Obama's grand plan to change America. Universal pre-k. From what I understand, Obama plans to use federal money to make pre-kindergarten education available for all American children at no cost. Apparently, Obama doesn't plan to make it mandatory to send children to pre-k, just free and available for all parents who want it. I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I just don't see the need for formal, public pre-k education. When I was a child most kids didn't attend any kind of preschool or day care center. For my generation the first introduction to formal education was kindergarten, and we turned out pretty well. I've never understood what kids learn in pre-k that couldn't wait until kindergarten. I suspect that most of the parents who send their kids to public pre-k do so for monetary, not educational, reasons. They're trying to reduce their day care bill, and cutting the amount of hours a child spends in day care does just that. I don't blame such parents but I also don't think their financial concerns should drive public policy in this area. Kids should go to pre-k because it's good for them, not for their parents' wallets.

Most supporters of universal pre-k do say, of course, that it's wonderful for children. Such kids, we're told, obtain an academic advantage that they retain all through school. The key is early reading. Kids who learn the alphabet in pre-k become better readers and learners. That makes sense, but it doesn't convince me that pre-k is even necessary let alone that it should be universal.

Learning the alphabet is helpful for young children but schools aren't needed to teach them. Parents can teach their preschoolers the alphabet and even basic phonics at home. Indeed, the monumental success of hundreds of thousands of homeschooling parents proves that schools ARE NOT necessary for educational excellence. The push for universal pre-k is, it seems to me, more about collectivizing child rearing than guaranteeing academic success.

Since the feminist revolution in the '60's and '70's, left-leaning social engineers have been pushing the idea that raising children should be a social responsibility. Getting children away from their parents and into group care has been touted as "progressive". Parents have been systematically made to feel incompetent, and even like obstacles to the healthy development of their children. They are told that the state knows best. Parents don't even have the right to know what the state is teaching or giving their kids in it's instituitions called schools. Universal pre-k fits right in with this "progressive" thinking.

ABC's and 123's don't have to be taught to little kids by professionals. For generations parents taught them to their children just fine. They understood that passing on that basic knowledge was their responsibility. Today, too many parents have bought into the notion that teaching is for "experts". They've bought into the notion that the state knows best. It's not true. Moms and dads know best. Moms and dads can teach their little ones the alphabet. Schools and teachers with four year degrees aren't necessary for that. Universal pre-k, yes or no? I say, no.

The Real Problem With Gay Marriage

I got this from my blogging friend Roadie who got it from...well, I don't know where he got it from but this is great little post. Sometimes humor delivers the truth better than anything else does. Enjoy!


San Francisco City Hall

Morning at San Francisco City Hall

"Next"
"We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest? No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you're not gay you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. Just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim. Are you going to discriminate against us just because we're not gay?" "All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert. Jane loves me and June. June loves Robert and Jane. And Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No. It's just that, well, the traditional idea of marrige is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income tax return."
"That does it. I quit!"


See, I told you humor sometimes speaks the truth better than anything else can. Thanks Roadie!