Politics

As the Democratic primary campaign season rolls on—seemingly interminably—we’ve read new articles about every imaginable aspect of the campaign (and some we couldn’t imagine). Today we were even treated to a New York Times story about how Democratic superdelegates’ children—and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle’s 7-year-old grandson—are persuading them to back Barack Obama. Yet we at Early Ed Watch have seen almost no coverage on a subject near and dear to our hearts—the candidates’ proposals for early education. While it’s certainly fascinating to hear about how children are helping Obama, we think voters would rather know what Obama—and his opponent Hillary Clinton—plan to do to help children learn.

Why should the media pay more attention to early education issues in the campaign?

Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate featured yet another extended exchange between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama about the merits of their respective health care plans. Health care's gotten a lot of attention in this campaign, with good reason--it's one of the biggest economic challenges facing our country, and both candidates have big, aggressive plans on it.

Yet we rarely hear much these days about another issue on which the candidates both have big, aggressive--but contrasting--plans: Early Education. Sure, the candidates toss early education into their answers to questions on other issues, and it's part of the list of policy areas where they say they'll make change. But, in all the 24 debates Democratic candidates have had so far this primary season, there hasn't been a single question specifically about early childhood education.

Two very different op-eds in the New York Times last week illustrate the emerging bipartisan consensus on the importance of high-quality early education. Writing just two days apart, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, a liberal, and conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks lay out very different policy agendas in response to our increasingly troubled economy. Yet, amidst substantial disagreement, Reich and Brooks sounded one common theme:

Here's Reich:

Over the longer term, inequality can be reversed only through better schools for children in lower- and moderate-income communities. This will require, at the least, good preschools, fewer students per classroom and better pay for teachers in such schools, in order to attract the teaching talent these students need.

And here's Brooks:

The second group of policies [the federal government should adopt to support human capital development] would involve early-childhood education. There could be nurse-home visits for children in chaotic homes so that they have some authority in their lives. Preschool should be radically expanded and accountability programs put in place.

Voters in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, including we here at Early Ed Watch, go to the polls today to express their choices for the 2008 Democratic and Republican presidential nominations. So we thought this is a good time to look at what the candidates have proposed on the early education front.

Here’s the good news: We’re seeing some pretty ambitious proposals on early education from the Democrats in the field. Senator Hillary Clinton would provide funds to help states create universal pre-k programs for all 4-year-olds that meet high quality standards, starting at $5 billion and ramping up to $10 billion annually in five years. She would also increase funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Senator Barack Obama has pledged to invest $10 billion annually to help states create and implement comprehensive early learning systems to serve children from birth through age five, improve Head Start and childcare quality, and expand Early Head Start. He would also make the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit partially refundable for low-income families. And both candidates have some smart ideas about supporting work-life balance to help parents spend more time with their young children. Despite some differences, both candidates are proposing serious investments that could make a real difference for American children.

We know that an aligned PK-3 approach is right in terms of policy--it's the best strategy to fight fade-out and maximize the long-term positive impact of early education investments, and it's how policymakers should be thinking as they design new state investments in early learning systems.

But polling data suggests that talking about early education in a way that links early childhood investments with K-12 schooling is also smart politics for early childhood advocates. Take a look at this presentation of public opinion data that pollster Christopher Blunt presented last week to the Invest in Kids Working Group. The data shows that the public has clearly gotten the message that children's early development is important. But, as Image 1 shows, when it comes to setting priorities for government action, voters place a much greater priority on improving K-12 education than in improving early childcare for 0-3's. Further, despite their belief in the importance of the 0-3 years for development, Image 2 shows voters think that public investments in improving children's learning will have the greatest impact if they focus on the elementary school years. Blunt also notes that voters fear new early childhood investments might compete for funding with K-12, undermining public education. [slideshow]

President Bush's final State of the Union address was his least interesting -- largely because it also his least partisan one.

So says Steven Clemons, Director of the American Strategy Program, in this morning-after assessment of Bush's performance, positioning and policy proposals: