In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

9 Truth, Justice, and the American Way T he facts presented in previous chapters are not new: we have known for a long time that early experience makes a difference to children’s later success, that the early experiences of American children are vastly unequal, and that large numbers of our children start school already “left behind.” A series of national reports and White House conferences presented the facts and called for public solutions: r In 1970, the White House Conference on Children highlighted child care as a major problem facing the American family.1 The conference called for free comprehensive programs to meet the developmental needs of poor children, with children of single parents and working families enrolled on a sliding fee scale. These ideas were reflected in the Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971, which was twice passed by Congress with bipartisan majorities, but vetoed by presidents Nixon and Ford. r In 1989, President George H. Bush’s national education summit highlighted the “achievement gap,” set school readiness as the first of six national education goals, and called upon governors to strengthen early childhood education in their states.2 r In 1994, the Carnegie Foundation’s Starting Points3 reported research on the impact of early experiences on brain development, and called the lack of good enough child care and family support for children ZERO TO THREE in the United States a “quiet crisis.” r In 2001, Laura Bush chaired the White House Summit on Early Childhood Cognitive Development,4 which highlighted the Hart and Risley research5 on class differences in toddler’s language development and their implications for literacy and school readiness. And, to some extent, the nation has responded. New programs and improved public policies were launched by the federal government and by every state. But, like the differences in vocabulary between children from poor families and those from professional families in Hart and Risley’s 116 Chapter Nine study, the gap between the growing needs of our families and the public investments to support them continues to widen. Other countries with modern economies have faced the same social and economic trends described in Chapter 8, but they have mitigated the impact on children with paid family leaves, family allowances, and public programs that are available for all preschoolers. r In France, where all three- and four-year-olds attend the ecoles maternelles , generous family allowances have virtually eliminated poverty among young children. Children from low-income neighborhoods enter the ecoles maternelles at two instead of three.6 r In Finland, all education is public, from preschool through university and professional education. After a one-year, fully paid leave, parents of toddlers can choose between heavily subsidized center-based care, partially subsidized in-home child care, or extended parental leave with a modest cash benefit, for the next two years.7 r In Denmark, 60 percent of children between six months and three years attend heavily subsidized infant/toddler care programs of exceptionally high quality.8 r In Italy, more than 90 percent of three- to five-year-olds attend preschool. Most are in public programs.9 In December 1995, the ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education compared the investments made by U.S. states and European countries in public early childhood programs. The digest concluded , Many OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] countries that are far less capable financially than most U.S. states have been making far greater investments in educating their young children than have U.S. states. In these countries, there is a shared belief in the value of public investments to ensure the care of children, and strong public support for early childhood programs across a spectrum of political persuasions.10 Our rather minimal public investment in such programs is due less to lack of resources than to lack of public will. Our conflicts over “family values” continue to be a major reason why our public policies have not kept pace with changes in work and family life. Beliefs That Have Blocked Our Progress To some extent, our continuing conflicts over family values and familyserving policies are “culture wars,” two sides of an ideological divide. More often, though, they grow out of ambivalence, false dichotomies, or widely Truth, Justice, and the American Way 117 held misconceptions about child care and child development. Our tendency to frame conflicts, choices, and differences of opinion in either/or terms often blinds us to a more productive synthesis...

Share