![\"\"](\"http:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/edreform\/files\/2018\/05\/Screen-Shot-2018-04-20-at-3.33.14-PM.png\")
<\/a>Historically, women in the United States have been the conventional caregiver for children, and until the 1960s were rarely employed outside of their home. \u00a0In 1950, less than 12 percent of married women with children under six were employed.\u00a0 By 1970, that number had increased to more than 30 percent (Karch, 2013). \u00a0The influx of women into the workforce, left preschool and child care centers overwhelmed and unable to meet their new demand (Ludden, 2016). \u00a0Previous to the 1971 bill, day-care centers had been available for impoverished families, often offered through philanthropists and social workers.\u00a0 For wealthier, middle-class families, private preschool and nursery schools were popular forms of childcare (Philips and Zigler, 1987).\u00a0 This early split between public and private programs and their association with impoverished and privileged communities stigmatized the purpose of early education and developed \u201csocial-class-linked conceptions of appropriate childrearing environments (Philips and Zigler, 1987, p. 3).<\/p>\n
One of the many challenges that have prevented the successful implementation of early childhood initiatives has been the American value of individualism in child rearing.\u00a0 This belief dates back to the beginning of early childhood programs and continues to impinge upon its progress.\u00a0 Early education occupies a unique position in society because it combines both child-care and school preparation in one setting (Karch, 2013).\u00a0 This contradicts an underlying belief that child rearing is the private responsibility of parents, whereas education is the public responsibility of the country (Rose, 2010).\u00a0 The shared responsibility of childrearing between the state and families \u201cthreatens deep-seated values about motherhood, childrearing, and family privacy\u201d (Philips and Zigler, 1987, p. 9).\u00a0 Nevertheless, during World War II, in an attempt to get women into factories building supplies for the war effort, Congress passed the Community Facilities Act.\u00a0 One part of the act aided in the development of childcare centers.\u00a0 Although these centers successfully cared for over 1.5 million children, the shared responsibility of childcare was always seen as a \u201ctemporary solution\u201d to the problems associated with childcare (Philips and Zigler, 1987).\u00a0 Finding and maintaining the appropriate balance between public and private responsibility continues to be one of the greatest challenges early education reform faces on a national level.<\/p>\n
Cognitive Psychology and the Purpose of Early Education<\/em><\/p>\n While the need for improved childcare options was initially the result of mothers joining the workforce, Cognitive Psychologist brought an additional element to the reform table.\u00a0 Research conducted in the 1960s identified a critical period of cognitive development during the first five years of growth (Karch, 2013).\u00a0 These findings brought about a new purpose for early education reform.\u00a0 Many politicians saw this as a crucial component of their \u2018War on Poverty\u2019.\u00a0 In 1965, Head Start, a federal early interventionist program for impoverished children was created with the promise of giving kids an early boost and long-term educational benefits (Rose, 2010).\u00a0 For politicians, this program hoped to increase the success of the nation\u2019s poor and help break the cycle of poverty and welfare dependence.\u00a0 Head Start operated outside of the public-school system, allowing leaders to modify the program based on the needs of their community and incorporate parent involvement (Rose, 2010).\u00a0 Although initial research about the effectiveness of Head Start was not overwhelmingly positive, it shifted the nations focus on student success.\u00a0 For middle-class families, the promised benefits of early education for the nation\u2019s poor made them question what benefits early schooling would on their own children (Karch, 2013).\u00a0 The purpose of early education was evolving.\u00a0 Instead of focusing on childcare, early education was now about \u201cschool readiness\u201d, preparing students to be successful throughout their educational career.<\/p>\n The 1960s was an exciting time for those invested in early education reform.\u00a0 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Harold Howe II, predicted in 1968 that \u201cby the year 2000 most children in the United States will be attending regular public school starting at the age of four\u201d (Karch, 2013, p.1).\u00a0 In 1964, consultant Harry Levin projected the \u201cpresent combination of circumstances\u2026makes a large-scale establishment of preschools inevitable\u201d (Karch, 2013, p. 57).\u00a0\u00a0 More importantly, the candidates for the 1968 presidential election were addressing early education reform.\u00a0 Richard Nixon\u2019s campaign expressed support for early education based on child development research and the desire to tackle America\u2019s growing poverty problems (Ludden, 2016).\u00a0 In a campaign speech, Nixon made a \u201c’national commitment to providing all American children an opportunity for a healthful and stimulating development during the first five years of life\u201d, which many saw as a commitment to large-scale reform efforts (United States. President, 1971).<\/p>\n The Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971 <\/em><\/p>\n In 1969, Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale and Indiana Representative John Brademas introduced the bipartisan Comprehensive Child Development Act in Congress (Roth, 1976).\u00a0 Federal legislation concerning universal educational programs was rare during this time period when most matters concerning education were debated on state and local levels.\u00a0 The idea of universal early education was surprising and \u201crepresented an abrupt departure from previous government policy\u201d (Rose, 2010, p. 43).\u00a0 Additionally, the act\u2019s long-term plan for all American students to attend early education programs through a sliding payment scale showed a shift in government spending priorities.\u00a0 Marian Wright Edelman, a civil rights organizer, described how the \u201c1971 bill tried to address the entitlements of all children and sought not to make child care a class issue.\u00a0 We don\u2019t need any more singling out of poor kids\u201d (Rose, 2010, p. 48).\u00a0 The preamble addresses the main goals of the Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971:<\/p>\n \u201cIt is the purpose of this Act to provide every child with a fair and full opportunity to reach his full potential by establishing and expanding comprehensive child development programs and services designed to assure the sound and coordinated development of these programs, to recognize and build upon the experience and success gained through Head Start and similar efforts, to furnish child development services for those children who need them most, with special emphasis on preschool programs for economically disadvantaged children, and for children of working mothers and single parent families, to provide that decisions on the nature and funding of such programs made at the community level with the full involvement of parents and other individuals and organizations in the community interested in child development, and to establish the legislative framework for the future expansion of such programs to universally available child development services\u201d (Roth, 1976, pp. 1-2).<\/em><\/p>\n Historically, Nixon\u2019s decision to veto the bill and condemn any future forms of national early education has become the lasting remembrance of the Comprehensive Child Development Act.\u00a0 Although many politicians and those within the nation were disappointed by Nixon\u2019s decision, the flaws in the bill and its passage through Congress cannot be overstated in the bill\u2019s eventual failure.\u00a0 The Comprehensive Child Development Bill\u2019s largest obstacle was its introduction as a congressional, rather than a presidential bill.\u00a0 This rarely produces the same level of support needed for passage.\u00a0 Furthermore, the Nixon Administration already had its own reform agenda, The Family Assistance Plan, which resulted in limited communication between Congress and the White House (Rose, 2010; Roth, 1976).\u00a0 Both forms of legislation would require political support and would compete for the same funding (Karch, 2012).\u00a0 A White House aid reported that the \u201cPresident felt that separate child care legislation would undercut one of the most appealing features of the President\u2019s own welfare reform bill\u201d (Hunter, 1971, December 8, p. 51).\u00a0 Not only did Congress fail to gain the support of Nixon, but also that of the public.\u00a0 A strategic decision was made to speed up the bill\u2019s passage through Congress by limiting time spent on educating the public and getting feedback about the proposed bill (Roth, 1976).\u00a0 In time, this decision would turn the public against the bill, prompting Nixon\u2019s veto message argument that \u201cneither the immediate need nor the desirability of a national child development program for the character has been demonstrated\u201d (United States. President, 1971, p. 2).<\/p>\n The language of the Comprehensive Child Development Act and the proposed amendments when passing through the Senate and House of Representatives also had detrimental consequences on its passage.\u00a0 The House decided to attach the Comprehensive Child Development Act to the Economic Opportunity Bill, which was due for an extension in 1971.\u00a0 In the early 1970s, vetoes were relatively uncommon and House leaders believed Nixon would not dare to veto the Economic Opportunity Bill, which was seen as a key part of the \u201cWar on Poverty\u201d (Roth, 1976).\u00a0 This represented one of the many examples of Congress\u2019s overconfidence in their ability to pass the act.\u00a0 Additionally, the act stated broad and vague goals for how the act would be implemented into American society (Rose, 2010).<\/p>\n The bill\u2019s fundamental elements, prime sponsorship, was debated in both the House and Senate, resulting in an even more confused definition in who could apply as a prime sponsor.\u00a0 The original House version had a population minimum of 100,000 individuals, preventing Indian reservations, small Head Start, nonprofit, parent, and migrant organizations from qualifying (Roth, 1976).\u00a0 Meanwhile, the Senate considered not having a population minimum and the Nixon Administration believed only States should have the power to apply for primary sponsorship (Karch, 2013).\u00a0 The Perkins amendment, introduced by Representative Carl Perkins, decreased the minimum sponsorship population to 10,000 individuals, which \u201chad the effect of stripping the bill of almost the entire republic support it had in the house\u201d (Karch, 2013, p. 79).\u00a0 The ambiguity of the qualifications to obtain primary sponsorship across the House, Senate, and the Nixon administration proved central in the act\u2019s eventual veto.\u00a0 Sponsorship, parent involvement, and state vs. local involvement in early education efforts would be debated across both houses of legislation, and eventually lead to the dissolution of much of the bill\u2019s support (Rose, 2010).\u00a0 The lack of effective committee meetings, communication between branches of government, and different opinions about the long-term goals of the bill was never resolved in time to meet the 1971 Economic Opportunity Act deadline.<\/p>\n Opposition to the Comprehensive Child Development Act was heard while the bill passed through Congress.\u00a0 Many were concerned that universal preschool would weaken family values.\u00a0 A Florida mayor argued that the bill was \u201cdesigned to destroy the family and the home\u2026and lead us into a totalitarian state\u201d (Karch, 2013, p. 74).\u00a0 New York Times<\/em> articles reported that \u201csenators criticized the new program as both \u2018radical\u2019 and \u2018socialistic\u2019\u201d, and that critics were \u201ccomparing it to youth programs in Nazi Germany and the indoctrination of the young in the Soviet Union and other communist countries\u201d (Hunter, 1971, December 3, pp. 1 & 21).<\/p>\n Although politicians on both sides of the aisle were willing to work together, several key elements of the bill\u2019s legislation were never fully addressed leading to a growing number of congressmen who opposed the bill.\u00a0 The failure to address the concerns of primary sponsorship, the role of states and parent involvement, as well as gaining public support, contributed to the bill\u2019s eventual failure.<\/p>\n Nixon\u2019s Decision <\/em><\/p>\n In the days leading up to Nixon\u2019s final decision on the bill, few in Congress believed the bill would pass.\u00a0 Marjorie Hunter, a writer for The New York Times, <\/em>believed \u201cthe President\u2019s decision on whether to veto the legislation could be one of the most crucial domestic issues he has faced this year [1971]\u201d (Hunter, 1971, December 8, p. 51).\u00a0 Nixon had recently announced controversial trips to China and the Soviet Union and was still fighting to pass his Family Assistance Plan (Roth, 1976).\u00a0 Some observers believed the \u201c\u2018president made a very practical political decision that he had more to gain from vetoing it than from signing it\u2019\u201d with the 1972 elections right around the corner (Karch, 2013, p. 83).<\/p>\n On December 9th<\/sup>, Nixon vetoed the Comprehensive Child Development Act, forever creating a crucial juncture for early education reform.\u00a0 The reasons behind Nixon\u2019s decision are mixed, but the language used in his speech \u201cdrove \u2018a stake through its heart,\u2019 so that similar child care legislation would not resurface in the future (In the words of Jeff Bell – American Conservative Union Lobbyist) (Rose, 2010, p. 63).\u00a0 Nixon argued that the \u201cprogram points far beyond what this administration envisioned when it made a \u2018national commitment to\u2026American children\u2019\u201d and \u201cthe intent of Title V [Child Development Programs] is overshadowed by the fiscal irresponsibility, administrative unworkability, and family-weakening implications of the system it envisions.\u00a0 We owe our children something more than good intentions\u201d (United States. President, 1971, p. 1).\u00a0 Nixon claimed that \u201cit would be better to have no legal services corruption than one so irresponsibility structured (Rosenthal, 1971, December 10, p. 20).\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nixon\u2019s veto message prevented the very nature of early education reform to be addressed again at the federal level by equating it with the sovietization of children.\u00a0 Knowing that there had not been public discussion, Nixon was able to point to the lack of interest and need for such immediate and drastic changes to early education.\u00a0 An aid to the Nixon Administration believed the president wanted to \u201ckill the bill on philosophical grounds\u201d, making future legislation a crime against the very values America was built on (Ludden, 2016; Rose, 2010).\u00a0 Furthermore, the bill\u2019s proposed cost was an easy target.\u00a0 Although cognitive psychologists and recent studies had established the importance of early education, Nixon pointed to the \u201cfiscal irresponsibility\u201d of sponsoring a two-billion-dollar bill, \u201cwhose effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated\u201d (Karch, 2013; United States. President, 1971, pp. 2-3).<\/p>\n The draft of the Comprehensive Child Development Act presented to President Nixon was not free from contextual and structural problems.\u00a0 Decisions about primary membership, parental involvement, and the long-term goals concerning universal programs were not fully addressed, allowing the president to veto the bill without personal repercussion.\u00a0 While protecting his own presidency, the Nixon\u2019s \u201cveto\u2026spurred a series of reactions and counterreactions that affected the subsequent evolution of American preschool education\u201d (Karch, 2013, p.8).\u00a0 Advocates for reform started looking for venues at the state and local level to effect change, resulting in the long-term fragmentation of early education reform efforts (Karch, 2013). \u00a0The veto also marked the beginning of the conservative party\u2019s association with traditional family values and a long-winded battle for reform efforts (Ludden, 2016).\u00a0 The Washington Post <\/em>believed the child development bill could be \u2018as important a breakthrough for the youth as Medicare was for the old\u2019\u201d, however, as Joan Lombardi puts it, Nixon\u2019s decision \u201c\u2018set the child-care agenda back for decades: while other countries moved ahead, the United States stood still\u2019\u201d (Rose, 2010, p. 53; Karch, 2013, p. 85).<\/p>\n Reform Efforts in the Twenty-First Century <\/em><\/p>\n The Comprehensive Child Development Act started a national debate about the importance of early education for a child’s future success in school, and about what venue should be responsible for legislation concerning reform efforts.\u00a0 In Nixon\u2019s speech, he argues that the goal of government is to \u201cdiminish and eventually eliminate poverty in the United States\u201d, but some policies should be left up to states to decide what best suits their individual needs (United States. President, 1971, p. 2).\u00a0 This act brought about a larger discussion about the role of government in education policy (Roth, 1976).\u00a0 Advocates for access to early education knew national level reform was no longer probable and therefore shifted their efforts to identifying state governments that would effectively implement their ideas (Karch, 2013).\u00a0 Across the country, states have used different public and private approaches to increase enrollment in early education programs.\u00a0 States differ in the scope of their programs, availability to students of different socioeconomic classes, and many other factors (Rose, 2010).\u00a0 The various approaches used by states results in the current patchwork system.\u00a0 Nevertheless, This disorder represents a continued interest and dedication to providing students with opportunities to succeed in school.<\/p>\n Although, Nixon helped establish traditional family values as the backbone of the conservative party, many red states continue to lead the nation in innovative early education reform efforts.\u00a0 Research conducted in 2018 by The National Institute for Early Education Research identified Oklahoma as a leading state in three and four-year-old participation rates.\u00a0 As one of four states to serve over 70% of four-year-old children, and meeting nine out of ten quality checklist standards, Oklahoma has quietly become a leader in early education reform (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2018).\u00a0 Oklahoma has helped prove that early education does not have to be associated with political parties, but rather, politicians who want something better for all the students in their state.<\/p>\n In 1980, Oklahoma started their early education reform efforts with the creation of just ten pilot programs across the state (Rose, 2010).\u00a0 With the hopes of eventually providing all students with the opportunity to attend preschool programs, the state continued to fund and grow the programs (Friedan-Krauss et al., 2018).\u00a0 In 1998, with a crisis in their public-school system, Oklahoma decided to add preschool to their school system.\u00a0 This decision provided students access to free public preschool programs across the state, with over 99% of school districts offering preschool today (Rose, 2010; Friendman-Krauss et al., 2018).\u00a0 One has to question what is unique about Oklahoma\u2019s approach that has allowed them to grow into one of the most successful states in the nation.\u00a0 One important element is that Oklahoma did not try to establish a universal program overnight.\u00a0 Instead, it took several decades to form the system that is currently in place (Rose, 2010).\u00a0 Because it is offered through their public-school system, local districts maintain some control over the programs, and they can be held to specific quality standards (Friendman-Krauss et al., 2018).\u00a0 Oklahoma\u2019s approach is not the only way to find success, but it does continue to serve as a model for other states looking to improve.<\/p>\n Many states have seen large increases in their total enrollment of students in early childhood programs since The National Institute for Early Education Research started collecting data in 2002.\u00a0 This upward trend is encouraging, however, there are still seven states without formal early education programs, and many more with less than 10% of their total population of preschool age students enrolled (Friendman-Krauss et al., 2018).\u00a0 \u00a0Although the Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971 would have been an uphill battle to successfully implement, its failure to pass left states responsible for future reform efforts.\u00a0 While some states like Oklahoma have implemented universal preschool programs, many states and the children they serve, have been left behind.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/em><\/p>\n The Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971 represents a time in which the nation believed access to early education should be a right available to all children.\u00a0 Changes to the labor market and research about early education helped heighten the debate concerning universal early education programs.\u00a0\u00a0Although flaws in the bill\u2019s language and Nixon\u2019s political needs would prevent its implementation, the Comprehensive Child Development Act continues to serve as a crucial juncture for early education reform.\u00a0 The decentralization of political authority from the national to the state level has helped create the patchwork system of early education programs seen across the country.\u00a0 For now, a federally sponsored early education initiative seems unlikely, and it is therefore up to individual states to implement meaningful programs for their youngest citizens.\u00a0 Some, like Oklahoma, Vermont, Florida, and the District of Columbia have risen to the top, providing over 70% of their four-year-old children with early education programs.\u00a0 Other, however, fail to even start the initiative with any state sponsored programs.\u00a0 Perhaps, what the nation needs now is not a universal program from the federal government, but rather universal standards to help guide states and their initiatives.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Work Cited:<\/p>\n Friedman-Krauss, A.H., Barnett, W.S., Weinsenfield, G.G., Horowitz, M., Kasmin, R. & DiCrecchio, N. (2018).\u00a0 The state of preschool 2017: State preschool yearbook.\u00a0 National Institute for Early Education Research, 14.\u00a0 <\/em>Retrieved from http:\/\/nieer.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/State-of-Preschool-2017-Full.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n Hunter, M. (1971, December 8). House clears poverty bill despite Nixon veto threat. The New York Times, pp. 1 & 51.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n Hunter. M. (1971, December 3). Senate approves a broad program of child day care. The New York Times,<\/em> pp. 1 & 21.<\/p>\n Karch, A. (2013). \u00a0Early start: Preschool politics in the United States. \u00a0Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from https:\/\/oapen.org\/download?type=document&docid=625245<\/a>.<\/p>\n Ludden, J (Producer). (2016, October 13). How politics killed the universal child care in the 1970s. <\/em>[Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2016\/10\/13\/497850292\/how-politics-killed-universal-childcare-in-the-1970s<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n Phillips, D. & Zigler, E. (1987). \u00a0The checkered history of federal child care regulations. Review of Research in Education, <\/em>14(1), 3-41. Retrieved from http:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.3102\/0091732X014001003<\/a><\/p>\n Rose, E. (2010). \u00a0The promise of preschool: From head start to universal pre-kindergarten. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n Rosenthal. J. (1971, December 10). President vetoes child care plan as irresponsible. The New York Times, <\/em>pp 1 & 20.<\/p>\n Roth, W. (1976). The politics of daycare: The comprehensive child development act of 1971. Institute for Research on Poverty: Discussion Papers, <\/em>369-76. \u00a0Retrieved from https:\/\/www.irp.wisc.edu\/publications\/dps\/pdfs\/dp36976.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n United States. President (1969-1974: Nixon). (1971). The veto message from the President of the United States, returning the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1971 with his objections, &c. The American Presidency Project.<\/em> Retrieved from http:\/\/www.presidency.ucsb.edu\/ws\/index.php?pid=3251&st=&st1=<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Early education in the United States has functioned as a patchwork system of public and private programs on each the federal, state, and local level. \u00a0Every program operates with their own goals, qualifications, and most importantly, function to serve a specific subset of the American population (Philips and Zigler, 1987). \u00a0How and why early … Continue reading The Crucial Juncture of Early Education Reform<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2116,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[119],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/edreform\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7762"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/edreform\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/edreform\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/edreform\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2116"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/edreform\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7762"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/edreform\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7762\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7774,"href":"https:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/edreform\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7762\/revisions\/7774"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/edreform\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/edreform\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/edreform\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/a><\/a><\/a>