scale of (0) most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most
agreement, please indicate how you rate the following options for
financing early childhood (pre-K) learning:
average response Make tax
credits available to early childhood providers who agree to be rated
5.2 average response
Make tax credits available to early childhood providers who offer
scholarships to low income children.
2.9 average response
Instead of tax credits for providers, fold early childhood learning
into the publicly-funded K-12 system.
6.6 average response
It is urgent for the 2011 Legislature take action on early childhood
Scheider (0) (0) (10) (8)
The tax code is a nightmare and a
very indirect subsidy. Let's move "free" education down and up as
well. Most civilized countries have it on both ends - why not us.
Stedman (10) (10) (0) (10)
Public Education has shown an
inability to effectively keep up with the changing education
environment. If we provide the appropriate incentives (tax breaks) for
the desired outcomes, we would typically expect to see better results.
Any Education provider, Government Program or service should be rated
for effectiveness. To not do this is to take tax dollars and
effectively throw them away. Thanks!
Kiscaden (6) (6) (0) (10)
I think that you should also hear
from others who are working on early childhood agendas...not just MELF.
They have one perspective, but there are others.
Fraser (10) (10) (10) (10)
These choices are all good in the
abstract - they are not necessarily consistent with each other. Much
depends upon the context for each choice. In some areas public
preschool may be the only workable choice. Also the concept of the
combined with early primary grades
(preK-3)- a concept endorsed by the National Association of Elementary
Principals – deserves consideration.. This subject needs a more
robust exploration - though I thought the speaker did a good job.
Cox (10) (5) (0) (5)
Stone (0) (0) (0) (0)
Government funding needs to stay out
of the child-rearing business. Parents need to take responsibility for
raising their children. Including pre-K funding in a K-12 system that
is undergoing massive systemic disruption seems intuitively
ill-grounded. Mitigation of cultural shortcomings in parental ability
to raise their children should be done at the most local level
possible. The taxpayers will never provide education money without
strings attached; accountability means strings attached. Those strings
must be as local as possible.
Ms. Davis seems to accommodate a lot
of bureaucracy, complexity and expense for the simple process of
disseminating information to parents. Rating systems for providers are
a slippery slope that seems loaded with the potential for social
planners to interject their unique version of reality into our
education system at a vulnerable point.
return-on-investment claims do not pass the straight face test.
Giving tax credits directly to
providers seem to presume that the parents are incompetent consumers
who are inadequately prepared to participate in a free market economy;
a dubious presumption.
It's troubling to hear older people
referred to as a source of cheap labor.
Senn (10) (5) (1) (5)
Full disclosure: I'm on the
executive committee of Minnesota Business for Early Learning. Art is
on our board. I think MELF is on the right track. We are working
with them. But it's not just about kids at risk. Half of MN 5
year-olds are not ready for kindergarten. As Laurie points out that
means a lot of middle class working parents need a nudge. That's what
we are trying to do.
Hennessey (0) (0) (0) (0)
Early childhood education is
terribly overrated and misapplied. The plain fact is, children grow
and mature at vastly different rates in their early years. I made the
huge mistake of starting my two boys in school at age three. The pain
of separation at that early age was very traumatic for both of them.
We were both working and I was stupid and listened to stupid advice;
oh, they will stop crying for you in a day or two. No way, it took two
weeks or more. After 20 years, they both still talk about it. There is
a reason babies are born to mothers and why mothers are pre-wired to
taking care of them. They can’t do that if the child is in an
institution such as pre-school, where parent participation is
"disruptive" and therefore forbidden...
Earlier generations started school
at age 9 or 10, and even in today's schools there is no proof that
children are at a disadvantage if they start later. At the right age,
very much dependent on the individual child, the brain reaches the
right level of maturity and learning takes off like wildfire.
Instead of advocating ways to take
mothers away from motherhood and force them or "facilitate" them into
the away-from-home workforce, we should instead find a way to bring
back the good old days when one income was sufficient to support a
family, and the mother really did have a choice about staying home or
going to work. But we use the schools as a babysitting service to let
her go away to work the whole day. This is wrong on all levels,
including biological and psychological, for every member of the
& Hertha Lutz (8) (8) (5) (9)
Fraser (3) (3) (10) (8)
With parents employed we have to
rethink schooling as child-care along with education. The idea that
in the 21st century we still have school based on the agricultural
calendar is silly. Educating children is comparable to the R&D within
business and the scientific community. We are all responsible--not
just parents--for the education, care and health of the upcoming
generation of citizens and workers and ought to understand that.
Blaming or putting all the responsibility--including financial--of
early childhood on parents is not fair.
Jennings (8) (8) (4) (10)
I didn’t get a sense of what they
base rating on. It could be facilities; it could be trained staff; it
could be learning philosophies (phonics vs. experiential, etc) or all
Clarence Shallbetter (7) (9) (0) (7)
Interesting presentation. Suggest
the state put some funds in 2011-12 into continuing the demonstration
with an emphasis on the pre-school children from low-income single
parent families. It would be interesting to learn more about "Parent
Aware” and what goes into qualifying providers to receive the proposed
Wright (0) (0) (5) (10)
Early Childhood Education should be
coupled with municipal daycare or private daycare vouchers, where the
daycare providers have at least a 2-year trade school degree. To
those families that are indigent daycare would be free. Fees would be
charged to all others on a graduated scale based on ability to pay.
Anderson (0) (0) (10) (10)
Early childhood, especially
pre-Kindergarten age, should be a part of the regular K-12 system, or
at least privately funded programs as education in the K-12 systems.
Weber (7.5) (5) (2.5) (7.5)
1. Rating providers. Before
providers could expect to be rated there must be an incentive based
system of educating and updating providers on best practice child
Anonymous (0) (7.5) (0) (0)
Anonymous (5) (5) (0) (0)
(0) (5) (0) (10)
1. Rating providers. The
discussion appears centered around the need for government provided
management. As stated in the report early childhood government
programs (irrelevant of the 300 programs) have failed over the last 50
years. I failed to read how revision of an existing program, or this
pilot program changes foundational misconception that government has a
solution to parenting. Any time government is providing money
regulation is included, thus restricting flexibility.
2. Scholarships. Targeted tax
credits assume government has ownership of income, and thus picks
winners and losers of government generosity, by allowing wealth to be
kept. If the system is targeting low-income families for services, and
they have no income or other taxing liability, where do the tax
credits for providers come from. I think I am missing a part of the
3. K-12. With the incredible train
wreck of public education (from my perspective), whose only
constitutional mandate is to educate our children to preserve our
Republic, why would anyone ever consider compounding the existing K-12
4. Legislature. I do not have the
time or space to address this topic fully; that said, to effectively
make any early childhood education work, the assumption of authority
of children needs to change. The state does not own, have authority
over, an obligation to, or preemptive responsibility for children, the
parents do. Both Mom and Dad. Churches, family, community (not
government), are responsible assisting in helping parents raise their
kids. Some will say I am nuts, or these groups fail to meet the need.
Today's Civic Caucus admitted failure also. I chose non government
Schmitz (2.5) (2.5) (2.5) (7.5)
1. Rating providers. Seems as if
the compensation system should reward this rather than getting another
social engineers issue in the tax code
2. Scholarships. Again why part of
the tax code, lets keep the system clean.
3. K-12. I am concerned that this
would result in the administration being with local school boards,
which I regard as anachronistic.
4. Legislature. I suspect that
asking this is so unlikely that it should not be part of the
discussion. Why not set standards within the private sector and raise
funds to publicize them.
(Bill) Hamm (0) (0) (0) (0)
1. Rating providers. Early
childhood education needs to be returned to the family and community
with government to stay out of it. Government’s involvement is only
resulting in the push for the addiction of more and more of our young
children to behavior modification drugs. It is time the education
establishment recognizes and supports the parent as primary educator
of their children and builds on that power base.
2. Scholarships. Any government
involvement under present legislation is about forced addiction of
children, not about the child’s best interest
3. K-12. Absolutely not, the
present system now allows for the pushing of behavior modification
drugs on children as young as 3 years old, (legislation passed 2 years
ago). The present K-12 education system is not designed around what is
best for children but rather what is best for teachers and industry.
Return our education system to local control and hold teachers and
doctors liable for all misdiagnosed children.
4. Legislature. They need to
support parents and local control on this issue not the education
establishment that has been out of touch for over 30 years.
White (7.5) (7.5) (0) (10)
Harrigan (7.5) (7.5) (2.5) (7.5)
Gehrman (2.5) (2.5) (5) (10)
2. Scholarships. If the tax
credits are tied closely enough to scholarships and the value is
4. Legislature. Yes, if state
action means state leadership and funding.
Park (10) (10) (0) (10)
Freeman (7.5) (10) (2.5) (5)
3. K-12. Perhaps if there was some
confidence it would be properly and fairly funded based on merit.
4. Legislature. The 2011
legislature possesses neither the funds nor the will to do so. It
can barely keep the existing K-12 education afloat. The private
sector will have to provide the resources for this to become a
Sievert (0) (5) (2.5) (5)
1. Rating providers. Most
effectiveness ratings for students in general (i.e. MCA testing) are
not reflective of the school or teacher performance. It needs to be
based on an evaluation of the student's potential and the
participation of the student's family. Otherwise, it is punitive and
no incentive to the teacher/school when the factors that influence
performance are out of their control. For example, parental
involvement is the single largest predictor of academic success. The
student may be brilliant and capable but if the parents are not
engaged, no amount of teaching or school performance is going to make
it work. I would be happy to talk further with anyone on this issue.
I'm quite knowledgeable on incentive systems and pay plans,
standardized testing, NCLB, and accountability measures in schools.
2. Scholarships. Early childhood
is part of the MN Ed funding.
3. K-12. There is a system of
preschools that do well. This question is not that simple.
4. Legislature. I think it is much
more urgent for the legislature to address issues in K-12 funding for
sure (restore it to appropriate levels) and to deal with the erosion
of funding in post-K (i.e. MNSCU, UM system) funding. We cannot
afford to let our university system be at risk. It is a huge economic
engine in the region.
Kyle Heaton (10) (10) (0) (0)
What about Foundation Grants as a
funding source? Also, I hate to put a damper on this program, which
looks great on paper but hazy in practice. As a Community Relations
Expert I found it difficult to 'deal' with low-incomers [because] they
tend to be sheep who rely on the "Community Broker" for guidance --
the latter insisting he/she will not participate until it is
determined the 'What's In It For Me' syndrome; hence, my disagreement
on the haste to proceed with the Legislature. Finally, the
public/private partnership needs to be explored thoroughly. It can
work (I've been involved in similar situations) as long as the public
sector understands its role and there is someone available to govern
the 'ground rules with an iron hand' (which is why I wound up in
Jost (5) (2.5) (10) (10)
1. Rating providers. I don't think
this will have much impact.
2. Scholarships. Early childhood
providers don't make enough money to do this.
4. Legislature. I couldn't agree
Angevine (7.5) (7.5) (2.5) (7.5)