Free preschool for many means free child care

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The underpinnings of the universal pre-K movement appeared noble: Provide youngsters with basic academic and social skills and by kindergarten those kids would be on solid footing for grade school and beyond.

Local and state governments danced to that beat and began pouring “investments” into public coffers for preschool programs. And for good measure President Barack Obama, the public education drum major for eight years, took the lead by bolstering the decades-old Head Start program and federal funds for free preschool.

So here we are, ensuring the health, education and welfare of toddlers to public school houses and, on behalf of low-income and working-class families, giving public dollars to private child-care providers.

The policies have changed over the years, proponents say, to accommodate women in the workplace, whether those women serve in traditional modern-day jobs such as nurses and school teachers or are breaking into the ranks of law enforcement and politics.

Lawmakers in Iowa, for example, are growing accustomed to accommodating Alma Jones. Her mom, Republican House member Megan Jones, straps little Alma in her chest carrier and transports her around all day. The chief reason? Her mom couldn’t find a day care spot for baby Alma when it was time to return to work (giving new meaning to Take Your Daughter to Work Day).

Still, women aren’t the only focus of these changing times. Newly-minted dad actor Ashton Kutcher pitched a booger in 2015, when he discovered the lack of diaper-changing tables in men’s restrooms. Out of sight, out of mind, all those decades, huh?

Not to be outdone, before Mr. Obama exited the White House, he signed the BABIES Act — Bathrooms Accessible in Every Situation Act — which mandates that male and female restrooms in federal facilities provide changing tables for all who enter, whether they’re there to buy a stamp or get a new Social Security card. Diapers, thank heavens, are not included.

Perhaps noble intentions but at a high cost, for sure. Besides, who’s measuring what?

Child care does not come on the cheap, regardless of how much money parents do or do not make.

In D.C., for instance, day care costs can be as high as $20,000 per year, depending on the age and number of children, and the parents are usually responsible for providing the drink, the food and the transportation.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said at the start of school year 2016-17: “I can’t tell you how many middle-class parents have told me what it meant to save $10,000 or $15,000” on child care via preschool programs.

Now, no politician in her right mind would oppose education, and no policymaker in his right mind would oppose the pretense of schooling. Even King Mongkut of Siam appreciated the role education played in civilization.

To wit, we need a well-informed, skilled and educated workforce for the benefit of all of us.

Yet two burning questions remain unanswered: 1) Are pre-K classes teaching the youngsters how to learn? 2) Are pre-K programs providing families with free baby sitters?

The second question is crucial since teachers point out that tykes are taken to school with no potty training, some wearing disposable pull-up diapers, and too many preschoolers have to be fed because they haven’t even been taught at home how to feed themselves. That’s the parental-social-behavior aspect that traditional, college-educated classroom teachers aren’t taught.

As for the first question, lessons from the Head Start program have taught that the benefits of the lofty program are often lost as students’ traditional grade-school lessons continue. So what’s the point?

Free child care.

• Deborah Simmons can be contacted at dsimmons@washingtontimes.com.