Much of that research indicates the importance of stimulating the learning process during these early learning years. However, some question the most appropriate and effective types and providers of this learning. For example, should the early learning years consist primarily of activities designed to stimulate creativity and imagination, or should activities strive for more academic content, such as reading, arithmetic, or a foreign language? Are the most appropriate providers those in government sponsored or operated day-cares or pre-schools, or are parents the most effective teachers of their three through six year olds?
Traditionally, children younger than six remained at home, under the care of a parent, legal guardian, or hired help. By the 1960s, it grew increasingly clear that a small but significant portion of those children entered school behind their peers, some far behind. Statistically, these were children raised in poor and/or minority families. Part of Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty called for an educational-type program, now known as Head Start, to compensate for the social, economic, and educational disadvantages.
In addition, in the decades following the 1960s, the traditional family began to unravel precipitously and traditional roles of mothers and fathers were questioned. As the number of two parent families decreased and as more women entered the workplace, the daycare/pre-school industry grew.
Today, the combination of the aforementioned societal variables, a thriving daycare center/preschool industry, and more than a decade’s worth of research on early childhood education has prompted educational and political leaders to re-examine America’s early-childhood education. Advocates support increasing government involvement, expanding current offerings, or substantively altering current practice. Critics oppose government involvement (such as increased regulation or funding) and fear compulsory pre-school attendance. Instead, oppositional voices hold up the traditional parental provider as the most effective and appropriate daycare/preschool model.
Yet, given the current state of affairs of America’s families, the contemporary church’s apathetic role in social welfare, and today’s incremental social policy, the traditional model-only approach is no longer realistic. Thus, we propose the following:
1. Children during the ages in question benefit most from the traditional parental provider model in a healthy, nurturing environment. This is and should remain the goal for America’s children.
2. Nevertheless, many children live in family structures outside this tradition and begin school at a disadvantage. This disadvantage affects not only their future but others in their classrooms. These children, their teachers and classmates, and our communities cannot afford to promote the traditional model while ignoring the plight of the disadvantaged. Simply stated: If parents can’t or won’t educate their children, someone must intervene. Such intervention could include the following.
- First, the church can no longer abdicate its social role. Much has been written about the government moving into the vacuum left by the church abandoning its social role and impact. This discussion will forego a detailed retelling. One point of re-engagement could be providing for the socio-emotional and educational needs of underprivileged pre-schoolers within the community. As is the case in providing for any needs, the church would see fruit (likely significant fruit) beyond meeting the needs of these children. In addition, the more the church is engaged, the less the government either needs to or is compelled to “fill the gap.”
- Second, we have yet to explore significantly innovative social policy to assist in buttressing traditional families and transforming struggling or dysfunctional families into healthier ones able to provide for the needs of their three through six year olds. These should be expanded and other ideas deserve exploration.
3. Finally, it is important to define boundaries when discussing social policy. The approaches above do not represent a call for compulsory daycare/pre-school or the expansion of current government efforts in this area. Rather, we oppose any efforts at compulsory pre-school at any governmental level. Further, more policy in this area accomplishes little. Instead, current policy should be altered to reflect the ideas outlined above and any new policy should aim to strengthen families as previously discussed.
