Christians—please reject further lockdowns and closing—for the children’s sake

At the K-12 level, the risk of Covid to children is low. The Wall St.  Journal’s Andrew Duehren and Alex Leary report today: The Trump administration is pressing the nation’s school systems to educate children in-person this fall, preparing to offer safety guidelines for reopening, as lawmakers on Capitol Hill search for an agreement to provide schools the federal aid they say they need to do so. Team Trump is encouraged by a recent statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics which notes the negative impact of lockdowns as well as the relatively small Covid risks faced by children. The organization says it “strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school. The importance of in-person learning is well-documented, and there is already evidence of the negative impacts on children because of school closures in the spring of 2020.” The statement adds: Lengthy time away from school and associated interruption of supportive services often results in social isolation, making it difficult for schools to identify and address important learning deficits as well as child and adolescent physical or sexual abuse, substance use, depression, and suicidal ideation... Policy makers must also consider the mounting evidence regarding COVID-19 in children and adolescents...Although children and adolescents play a major role in amplifying influenza outbreaks, to date, this does not appear to be the case with SARS-CoV-2. Although many questions remain, the preponderance of evidence indicates that children and adolescents are less likely to be symptomatic and less likely to have severe disease resulting from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, children may be less likely to become infected and to spread infection. Policies to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 within schools must be balanced with the known harms to children, adolescents, families, and the community by keeping children at home.

Investing in young children

Head Start, a federal program for pre-schoolers to prepare them for school, was declared a failure after 40 years and again after 50 years and trillions of dollars by the government’s own assessment. No politician for 55 years has dared suggest dismantling it, and the only solution was more money and more fiddling with the design which tries to make up for no dad in the home, low income of young single moms and the chaotic living conditions of the children, which may include mom’s boyfriends, or abuse, or foster care, couch surfers, poor nutrition, unsafe neighborhoods, etc.
Then came Early Head Start in 1994—practically beginning with pre-natal care. EHS had by 2009 over 650 programs. Despite marginal increases in the percent of parents who read to children through EHS, by age 5 there was no improvement even with rigorous studies.  EHS and Head Start don't change the family dynamics. So I was somewhat surprised when I read about a genetic design (although nothing surprises me much these days where bureaucracy and government grants are concerned).

“Using genetically-informed designs. Because genetic differences play an important role in children’s academic achievement and behavioral adjustment,  research to inform EHS should make use of methods that take genetic factors into account. Examples are studies using twins and adopted children as experimental subjects.”  (10 ideas, Nicholas Zill)

That’s the kind of talk that gets Charles Murray kicked off liberal college campuses. Even so, it’s darn scary to put “genetic differences” into the hands of the federal bureaucracy, the only component that has grown and advanced ($100 million in 1965, $16 billion in 2011)  in the whole Head Start half a century of no progress.

 http://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Investing_in_Young_Children.pdf

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/1013_investing_in_young_children_haskins_ch3.pdf

This is insane--cut throat pre-K applications

Are New Yorkers crazy? $30,000 for a private pre-school, and 28,817 applicants for 19,834 slots in the city’s public pre-K programs? So some have formed co-ops. Sounds like they aren't the play groups that I had with 3-4 other Moms in Upper Arlington in the early 1970s.

The dearth of high-quality preschool education for poor children has been widely reported, but there is a growing middle-class gap when it comes to prekindergarten. “Access is actually lower for middle-income people than it is for people that are poor,” said Steven Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research, a research and advocacy group that supports universal prekindergarten. Those who say middle-class families should just pay for preschool themselves, Mr. Barnett said, “don’t understand how expensive it is.”
Underground Pre-K Groups.

I don't really agree with the author on the benefits of pre-school (33% higher income in one study). The children who attend high quality schools also come from highly educated, 2 parent, high income homes with a lot of enrichment opportunities. If not, they probably lose any gains they supposedly got in pre-school. It appears that New York's strict standards, regulations and red tape for child care have caused a higher demand, fewer facilities, and a way for those on top to stay there.

The author and her husband and some other families they knew in their neighborhood created a co-op pre-school. Ending 3 weeks early after some families moved and replacements had to be found, it was exhausting. "Emotionally burned and mentally depleted, my husband and I vowed never to do it again." But they did.

One commenter, "Redstate," really became unglued with older mothers puzzling over how it could be such a big deal to help a child get ready for kindergarten. Another practically has your kid enrolled in prison if you don't get him into pre-school!

In my opinion, which means nothing to young parents or New Yorkers, the push to get more children in school before age 5 is a quest for more schools, more public teachers and more union members.

How to lie with headlines about the Republicans

Today I was looking for information on a training program for women that I saw in the recent budget consolidation bill (1200 p.) that was being rammed through. In the process of googling, I found this article at the Washington Post Answer Sheet but don't know if these programs were actually cut:

43 education programs Republicans want to eliminate
Forty-three education programs — including those that promote literacy, teacher development and droppout prevention — have been targeted for elimination in a Republican-sponsored bill in the House as a first step toward rewriting the law known as No Child Left Behind.

And then when I read the article, I found out the reason they wanted to eliminate them was because
1) they'd already lost their funding in the last budget bill;
2) Obama had proposed a consolidation and the program was part of that;
3) they hadn't been funded in recent years;
4) they were approved but never funded; and
5) they were duplicates of other programs.

Note: The House is controlled by the Republicans; all revenue originates in the House (Art.1, Sec. 7, Constitution of the United States)

Here are two an examples:
Even Start Family Literacy Program had received $66.5 million in FY 2008, 2009, and 2010, (which means it was a Bush program), but it had been deemed ineffective by the OMB and the children and parents in the program showed no better gains than those not in the program.

The High School Graduation Initiative (Drop Out Prevention) provided grants ($50 million in FY 2010 and 2011) to help schools increase high school graduation rates. The program did not receive funding in FY 2008 or 2009. It duplicates the ESEA Title I (Aid for the Disadvantaged) program. The fact that the FY 2008 and FY 2009 years were mentioned, indicates to me this was originally a Bush program, but was probably not funded by the Democratic House.

As soon as Obama took office in 2009, all Bush programs were scrubbed from the web, even applications forms and reports of success or failure, so unless you can find mention of them in a state document, it's awfully difficult to research. Obama added money to education programs with the stimulus, so the 2009 education budget although proposed during Bush's final year actually reflects the Obama infusion. Then when the stimulus ended, a drop in funding is shown for 2010.

The War against Universal Pre-School

has already been lost, so don't even enlist. I was browsing some articles on the internet, and the other side is so well-funded that if you care about anything else in life, you'll need to rethink your priorities. I'm not even going to give you the links. Trust me on this one, or do your own google work.

When "Head Start" got going about 50 years ago for poor families it created an image that some kids might get ahead of others if you just did the right things early enough. Teach some colors, how to paste and draw, some social skills, and perhaps it won't matter that mom's on drugs, or dad deserted the family. So middle-class parents (like me) rushed to the challenge--and they put their kids in programs too, thus moving them ahead of the low-income kids who didn't have an enriched home environment, good health care and nutrition, college educated parents, and a father in the home. Or--and I'm just guessing here--that's the excuse for Head Start children (government pre-schools) not making up the difference when they are matched to middle-class and wealthy kids who attended private pre-schools PLUS had all the family advantages. I know my children attended pre-school in the 1970s, but I'm sure no one had heard of it in the 1940s, or if they did they called it grandma's house or babysitting. I taught them to read and count because I think their pre-school emphasized social skills, sitting still for story time, and not throwing fire trucks at each other.

Speaking of which. Today I was putting away exercise equipment in a room full of pre-pre-schoolers (under age 3) and their parents. I noticed a foster child, and not because he was black, but because he was the only one not using the toys "appropriately"--he was throwing them across the room (had a great arm, too). The other toddlers just worked and played around him very intent on whatever they'd chosen--sandbox skills, riding tricycles, crawling through tunnels, sitting on daddy's lap, etc. When I was using the rest room, the little one in the next stall asked her mommy if she could watch me. And mommy was there to explain manners and rest room behavior. Not all little girls get that sort of one-on-one discussion with their mothers about using public toilets--toilet paper, hand washing, manners, etc. The difference between what I saw and day-care is that there were probably two children for every adult, and it only lasts 2 hours--the parents, not paid aides, were doing the supervising.

Back to the war you missed. The education system is salivating--it enlisted years ago in this war and is extremely well trained to combat any argument you may have. Pre-schools have a patch work of standards by city and state for buildings, curricula, teachers, aides, safety, play time, unions--I mean, can you see the economic opportunities here for colleges of education, the building trades, the regulatory agencies? My head just swims with visions of dollars in chubby little fists. Convincing people that a child's mind and behavior are completely malleable with just 20-30 hours a week away from mom, grandma and the hood, and that the payback to the government will be enormous when they don't go to prison, shouldn't be any more difficult than convincing them we control the climate. If we just spend enough money. . . Whoopee. It's worth a chunk of that stimulus, right? After all, stingy old Bush was only spending $7 billion a year on pre-schoolers--Obama and the teachers unions who supported him can do better than that.

So what if the research is totally shaky and biased? (No research denying the value of universal pre-school will ever see the light of day in peer reviewed education journals which are totally dependent on federal money from the editors' salaries to the grants for research to the professors' tenure track requirements to the library subscriptions to the license for digitizing the information in huge databanks).

Although the little squirts do have to be born first before we enroll them in pre-school. Maybe that's the angle we should take? Pit FOCA and the feminists against the universal early childhood education movement.

How much for child care and development?

Obama's concern for children (who make it through the birth canal and aren't a product of a botched abortion) is evident on his web page under "Education." I can't find details on the proposed costs, but here's the bare bones for early childhood education.

1. Zero to Five Plan: The Obama-Biden comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan will provide critical support to young children and their parents. Unlike other early childhood education plans, the Obama-Biden plan places key emphasis at early care and education for infants, which is essential for children to be ready to enter kindergarten. Obama and Biden will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state "zero to five" efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school.
2. Expand Early Head Start and Head Start: Obama and Biden will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both.
3. Affordable, High-Quality Child Care: Obama and Biden will also provide affordable and high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families.

Would you like to take a guess at what we've been spending under mean old President Bush, those heartless Republicans? Would you believe ELEVEN BILLION in FY 2004 and FY 2005?

For both Fiscal Years (FY) 2004 and 2005, $4.8 billion in Federal CCDF funding was available through block grants to all 50 States, the District of Columbia,5 Territories, and 261 Tribal grantees in FY 2004 and 265 Tribal grantees in FY 2005 (representing over 500 Indian Tribes). Through CCDF and other funding streams available for child care––including State Matching and Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) dollars transferred to CCDF or spent directly by States on child care services, and Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funds––over $11 billion was available for child care in FY 2004 and FY 2005. Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)Report to Congress for FY 2004-2005

To hear Obama tell, you'd think America's poor children have been left on street corners and with great grandmothers while their mothers go to work in sweat shops. These huge block grants to the states began back in the mid-90s under "welfare reform" so that mothers who needed to work had safe and reliable child care. I've looked through hundreds of these alphabet soup programs. I do have concerns about their effectiveness, however, lack of funding and pie-in-the-sky goals aren't it.

Keep in mind there's no hard evidence that Head Start type programs, even after 40 years, have any long term affect, because these youngsters will continue to compete their entire lives with children who have come from enriched environments, with two parents who value education. True, they would be even further behind if they hadn't learned to sit still, follow instructions, the names of colors, how to stand in line, etc., but they won't catch up no matter how many billions Obama or Bush throws their way.

Marriage is now the great divide in social class, education and wealth, and our government programs have been discouraging marriage for decades giving women with children money and keeping the fathers out of the home. The government "helps" discourage achievement, because benefits might be lost as one moves up the social and salary scale. A few hours a day in even the best enriched program cannot balance or play catch up--its a fairy tale that liberals, conservatives and religious people want to believe, in part I think, because there is so much government money waiting for those who do. Whatever gains they achieve by attending even good pre-schools are lost by second or third grade. There is some evidence that keeping mainstream kids in universal child care environments holds them back and creates more problems for their families, so perhaps thats the BO-Biden plan for fairness.