BCT Editorial – 4/5/06

This page was last updated on April 6, 2006.

First steps; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 5, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Early childhood development is the key to education

“Parents are children’s first and best teachers.

“That’s not a cliché; it’s reality.

“This is ‘The Week of the Young Child,’ and a number of local programs are being held to inform people as to the importance of early childhood education.

“Darcy Stiteler, coordinator of the Beaver County Early Care and Education Council, summed it up very well when she told The Times the ‘first years are vitally important to the growth and development of children.’

“The problem is that not enough parents, grandparents, guardians and other influential adults in children’s lives understand how critical their roles are. They believe that education starts when children enter kindergarten, and that it is up to teachers to perform that task.

“Teachers are important. A good teacher makes a world of difference, as does a bad one.

“However, the problem with so much of the reform talk regarding education these days is that it ignores the importance of what takes place outside the classroom. Schools do not exist in a vacuum; they are a direct reflection of the families and communities they serve.

“That’s why early childhood development is especially important and cannot be ignored. Children who are nurtured physically, emotionally, spiritually and nutritionally have a much better chance of maximizing their potential in school than their counterparts who don’t receive as much (if any) of that care.

“Parental support for their children’s education starts in the womb and continues through high school. No other adult in a child’s life comes close in importance. As Laurence Steinberg reported in his book ‘Beyond the Classroom: Why School Reform Has Failed and What Parents Need to Do,’ parents and peers have the greatest influence over a student’s classroom performance.

“Steinberg and his co-authors concluded the reason so many students do poorly in school is not that their schools are deficient but that their parents either don’t care about their children’s performance or don’t show their children in positive ways that they do.

“We’ll go back to Stiteler again, who stressed that education ‘begins at birth, and for the parent, even before then. The younger kids start, the more prepared and better off they’ll be when they get to kindergarten. It’s up to the parents to get involved.’

“This isn’t to absolve teachers and administrators of their educational responsibilities. However, children only spend about 10 percent of a calendar year in school. The rest of their time is spent with parents, family and peers.

“Any reform aimed at improving education in America that doesn’t address that aspect of children’s lives is doomed to fail. Instead of wasting billions of dollars on the No Child Left Behind Act, the federal government should be providing more funding to libraries and programs such as Head Start and Early Head Start that help parents become better teachers and their children better learners.”

[RWC] While the editorial makes a lot of correct statements, I believe this editorial has about two true goals.

First, lay the foundation that parents are not doing their job when it comes to education. This opens the door to the government forcing kids into government run schools at an earlier age. Note the support of Head Start and Early head Start at the end of the editorial. These two programs cover kids from 0 to 5 years old.

While we’re on Head Start, The Department of Health and Human Services concluded, “In the long run, cognitive and socioemotional test scores of former Head Start students do not remain superior to those of disadvantaged children who did not attend Head Start.” Translation: Throwing tax dollars at Head Start is a waste.

The second goal of the editorial is to absolve the Times beloved public school system of poor results.

What the editorial doesn’t explore is the reason behind the parental behavior described, if it exists. The alleged response is classic behavior when government takes “responsibility” from individuals. Liberals have done their darnedest to convince us that a child’s education is the responsibility of the government. Should we be surprised when some parents actually accept that BS?

This result is completely predictable. How many of us don’t prepare for retirement because we’re incorrectly led to believe Socialist Security and Medicare will take care of us? How many of us don’t work as hard as we should because the government bails us out with welfare, Medicaid, so-called “tax credits,” et cetera.

The behavior this editorial whines about is exactly the behavior fostered by the economic, political, and social positions the Times holds dear.