Early Childhood Ed – Round 2: #StopPreK

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Is the Utah legislature thinking only about their pocket books, re-election and asking themselves, “Will the UEA oppose me if I vote against the pre-school bill?”

Even some of the more trustworthy have articulated logically-based arguments for why they should vote in favor of taking little 3 year olds out of the home when countries such as Finland and Denmark have the good sense not to require institutionalized education until age eight without experiencing any signs of educational neglect.

In 2013, the Utah State legislature debated whether to fund voluntary pre-school, and it failed to pass.

In 2014, we are promised that private entities will fund and that it will be a cost savings because it will also cut back on the remediation costs taxpayers fund.  No one is mentioning that once one 3 year old is going to pre-K, all the other moms and dads will feel the pressure to put their child in pre-K as well.

I wrote a detailed, well-researched article on the bad idea of pre-school in 2013.  You can review it here.  Funding sources, strategies and bill numbers may change, but principles don’t.

Here’s my message to the Utah House Education Committee and the House of Representatives – should it get out of committee:

1. We must stop combining the influence of private funding with public. It not only diminishes the power of the voter that elected you and puts it into the lobbyists and corporations that have far more influence, but it also undercuts the truly private market.

Whether or not you think pre-K is a good idea is not the issue here. How will the private pre-schools compete with the public-private partnership (P3) that this legislation establishes?

2. Acknowledge that optional typically becomes compulsory. Public ed itself began as an option for parents, and now we do know that when government starts a program, it is typically “optional” but then it grows into a mandatory program. Such is the case in Europe where pre-K is now mandatory. Even when optional, a typical parent is not going to want their child to be “held back” or “behind the rest” and so optional grows into standard. Then comes compulsory.

3. Finally, put the best interests of children before the cost benefits. Please stop “messing” with moms and their babies and the precious few years they have to bond with their little children. No small child should be spending more time away from their homes and in longer school days, much less taking a little 3 year old out of the home and into an institutionalized government day care center. Studies show that a child is not held back in countries such as Finland where they don’t enter school until the age of 8.

It is so disheartening to listen to the debates and arguments about this funding or that cost, and how much we might save or spend. At what cost? Is the separation anxiety, the alienation and detachment disorders documented worth it?

As a mom and grandma I urge you to think with your heart instead of with your pocket book. Please vote NO on this bill.

More Information:

Pre-K Sex Ed:  European Style – Unintended Consequences

I’ve received a report from a good friend who recently returned from a European country where pre-K is mandatory now.  It all started as voluntary.  Then it became mandatory. That’s how it works. Public education itself started out as an option, now it’s compulsory.

My friend was in Europe teaching seminars to parents, and she learned that the pre-K classes were teaching those toddlers about sex: gay sex, hetero sex, and narcissistic sex (how to get pleasure from touching themselves).

They now use unisex bathrooms with no stalls.  Girls and boys together using the toilet.  Urinals on one side, toilets on the other.

The parents complained to the school that they wanted to teach their children modesty and values.  They thought the sex ed topics were inappropriate.  The school administrators told the parents that teaching modesty and values was inappropriate.  Yes, you read that correctly.

Did you get that?  THE PARENTS WERE INAPPROPRIATE!  Teaching a 3 year old how to masturbate was appropriate.

If you think this is very far-fetched, not long ago, a top university official told me that the college accreditation committee was on campus at Brigham Young University and informed the school that its Honor Code – based on a standard of morality – was immoral because it infringed on the freedom of students to co-habit, to have premarital and homosexual sex.

Do you see a connection here?

Parental Alienation

Back to pre-school:

I know a mom who was working part-time and hired a nanny to watch her little one.  Eventually, the toddler bonded with the nanny and not the mom.  In this European country, according to the report I received, parents are now noticing that starting school at such an early age is alienating the toddler from the parent who, up until that time, had been the trusted and primary source of their information and values training.  At age three, the teacher becomes the expert, not the mom.

Think about it:  As my friend explained, any teacher that would teach something so intimate and personal as sex and how to self-stimulate to a three year old is not only alienating that child from the parent, that teacher is also guilty of child abuse and sexual exploitation.

Knowing the strong agenda of this transformation of our schools into a top-down federally-driven system, with the ever-indulgent secularization and sexualization of young children who are spending more time in a school classroom instead of with their parents at home, can you, dear Legislator, really truly promise that this expansion of the role of the state as parent, and these heinous crimes will never happen in Utah?  I mean really promise?

I think not.

Still doubting my own skepticism?  Consider this:  Who would have thought, even two years ago, that Utah would be the first state to fall victim to a federal judge who would strike down a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, unilaterally legalizing gay marriage, and that the federal government under US Attorney General Eric Holder would de facto create domestic partnerships, overriding our state Constitutional law?

If you are even remotely thinking about voting in favor of the early-pre K bill – HB 96, because you are focused on “cost savings,” I have two final questions to ask of you regarding unintended consequences:

1. Can you guarantee, by opening the door to Pre-K, that down the line you will not also be opening the door to mandatory pre-K and then, just as Europe has mandated – sex ed, European style?  As we know, as Europe goes, so goes the U.S.

2. What on earth are you thinking?

So, in a few years, if this bill passes now in 2014, and when I am proven correct with my assessment here, I think it appropriate that the moms, whose children you will have alienated, not just morally, but with that special mother-child bond … create an uprising. For now, I am speaking in their defense and the unintended consequences of this measure.

Sponsoring HB 96 is opening up this inevitable door through which no one really wants to look or even imagine in pristine, conservative, religious Utah.

But by then, I’m sure that we too will be told that what we once thought of as inappropriate is now the norm.