My position on early childhood education must be seen in the context of the entire educational reform movement that has been sweeping the country since 1983. Over the past 14 years school reform has become increasingly complicated and confusing. At first the goal was simply to improve the teaching of academics inasmuch as American students had fallen seriously behind in international testing. It was not long before bands of educrats started jumping on board with ideas that convinced lawmakers and other authorities that American education could not be fixed. It had to be "reinvented." And so we find the key document defining the needed reforms, Goals 2000, having as its subtitle "A Strategy for Reinventing Our Schools." This federal act was signed into law in 1994. Since then hoardes of "specialists" have started serving as consultants to state and federal officials and agencies suggesting ways and means to better educate American students.

As the reform gained momentum, center stage fell primarily to sociologists and psychologists. By taking the initiative they were able to convince educators that what American education really lacked was an "affective" dimension. Too much time had been wasted in stuffing young minds with knowledge that would be useless in the new millenium. In fact, the old methods used in classroom teaching were all wrong. What was needed were ways and means of teaching students how to confront life in the 21st century. The traditional values with which most students had been raised, including their attitude toward knowledge and life, had to change. The old thinking that viewed life as conforming to rules and regulations was wrong.

So new methods were devised to instill into students a sense of being free spirits. No longer was the teacher to be an authority figure or a dispenser of knowledge, but rather a facilitator or coach who would guide students toward "outcomes" or "standards" that were arrived at by working in teams or groups, not by sitting in rows of desks. New buzz words and phrases came into fashion, including "higher order thinking skills," "critical thinking," "self-esteem," "authentic assessments," "integrative learning," "inclusive classes," "community involvement," "Certificate of Initial Mastery," "whole language," "equity," "life-long learning." These were the means that would lead to the new Utopia whose official mantra was "All children can learn well." No coercion, no homework, no time limits, no grades or scores or grade levels, no standardized tests - just a free and easy environment that encouraged natural learning. This was the central structure of the reform.

With the rapid approach of the year 2000, new thinking decreed that there was need for additions at either end of the structure. At the upper end, at the middle and high school level, students had to be shown how schooling meshed with "real life." A program was devised inviting business and industry to become active partners with the schools. Known as School-to-Work, this would somehow combine vocational interests with academic subject matter. Business leaders would help define the skills needed for hundreds of possible vocations. Students were to start thinking of career interests from Kindergarten. By the 10th grade they had to choose a "career major," a choice for which they had been preparing for 9 years. By the senior year the choice was finalized, and students would receive "skill certificates" which made them eligible either for the work force or for post- secondary education. They presumably had thoroughly researched their chosen career, and were now ready for Life.

This brings us to the adjustments being made at the other end of the structure - the pre-school years. Here too the creative imagination was put to work to decide how best to prepare a child for regular schooling since the first goal of Goal 2000 was "All children in America will start school ready to learn by the year 2000." The idea of allowing a child a carefree five-year early childhood led to a waste of time. That period of time should be used to introduce the child to the activities that would be expected of him or her in the early grades of elementary school.

Despite the rhetoric, the federal government opted for a program called "Head Start." This was in essence a program of custodial care where the emphasis was on baby-sitting youngsters while the parents were at work or otherwise engaged. Businesses, industries, churches and other agencies quickly availed themselves of federal funds to open Day Care Centers. Special programs were also devised that would show parents how best to help prepare their children for the schools of the new millenium. One such program trained Parent Educators to "coach" parents to assume this new role. The Parent Educator was defined as follows:

A Parent Educator is not a social worker
A Parent Educator is not a nurse
A Parent Educator is not a therapist
A Parent Educator is not your child's teacher

His/her main purpose is "to provide accurate and timely information about the child's development and other information which may contribute to the wellness of the child." On the other hand, the program "requires voluntary commitment on the parent's part." Once the parent rejects the services, they are immediately terminated. Already one can see parents becoming surrogates of a government-sponsored program.

In time, states started vying for federal funds to establish programs that would go beyond custodial care with a focus on 4- year olds. In N.Y., part of the governor's 1996 State of the State address was devoted to a plan called the Educational Excellence Project which focused on "the need to expand early learning opportunities for all of New York's four-year olds - beginning with low-income children...." This resulted in a report by the Lieutenant Governor entitled "Preparing for Success: Expanding Prekindergarten and Educational Daycare." Declaring that "Prekindergarten education for 4-year olds is the best investment N.Y. can make," it provides statistics showing that participants are "50% less likely to be in special education, and 26% less likely to be held back by the end of the third grade...." It further asserts that the positive effects continue at least to the seventh grade. Unlike Head Start the focus is on building school skills and using fully certified teachers. With the new welfare law increasing by 30% the number of children needing day care, the report urges that the proposed "educational daycare" be funded by the state. It also recommends that the program NOT BE LIMITED TO LOW-INCOME FAMILIES. The INITIAL cost would be $117.5 million which could easily be raised by the savings from the diminished need for special education, by loans, and by a temporary dime-a-pack cigarette tax. [Emphasis added]

Local districts also sought a slice of the pie. Binghamton now has 2 programs in place. One is the Even Start Program which has received funding since 1992. The other is a "less intense" program known as PACT [Parents and Children Together] which began in 1987 and replicates a program known as Parents As Teachers, a statewide early education program originating in Missouri. Both programs have summary descriptions starting as follows: "The Binghamton School District is committed to providing programs and support to families beginning with the birth of each child and continuing throughout the child's education program. The programs offered are designed to ensure that children come to school prepared to learn and enthusiastically become life-long learners and that parents assume the roles of first and foremost teachers and models for their children."

Even Start "serves families whose parents are eligible for adult education and are living below the poverty levels." It provides both center-based and home-based services which depend on a variety of community agencies, the "key partner" being the County Department of Social Services. Its ultimate purpose is as follows: "Even Start is a critical component in our broad-based and comprehensive menu of services designed to intervene from birth to support children and families living within the school district's attendance area."

The PACT Project is a "voluntary, no-cost parent education program open to any family...with children between birth and age three." It includes monthly home visits by "certified Parent Educators; periodic screenings for vision, hearing, language, motor, and SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT in an attempt to create an environment which will foster the skills and self-esteem appropriate and necessary for a successful start in school." [Emphasis added] A local professor has provided evidence that PACT children out-perform the general population with scores that have remained consistent through the elementary years.

If we now add to these two programs the state-sponsored Educational Excellence Project, and the two federally-sponsored Head Start and Goals 2000 programs, we have a structure which will essentially provide schooling and services from birth to death or "womb to tomb." When we consider that something similar is happening throughout the country, it is no wonder that many critics are concerned about the extent to which the role of the family is being threatened by the reform efforts. Such concern is reflected in the use of such expressions as "culture nannyism," "family meltdown," and parents becoming "fleeting visitors" in their children's lives.

While some services may help prepare needy youngsters for regular schooling, the fact that the ultimate aim is to provide pre- school services to any and all families interested in receiving them calls for careful scrutiny. Perhaps the best way to do this is through a series of questions rather than commentary:

- How are daycare services affecting the child-parent relationship?
- Will daycare tempt mothers to leave the rearing of children to "the village" with minimal participation?
- If "a comprehensive early education program" is to be provided to youngsters at age four, won't most parents join in? - How far can we stray from the natural upbringing of children in the early years?
- What happens to those families whose parents refuse to succomb to the temptation of becoming "professional parents?"
- As government agencies devise more programs will there be a point when their authority will supersede parental authority?
- Will the spontaneity usually associated with child-rearing become a thing of the past as parents surrender to "official" methods of raising children?
- Could not the subjecting of a child between the ages of 1 and 5 to authorities other than parents lead to alienation between child and family and the blurring of the accountability factor?
- Is there any hard evidence that any part of the reform effort is really working or that costs can be kept under control?

In conclusion, if early childhood education programs are to succeed at all, they must not stray excessively from the traditional family upbringing that has produced civilization as we know it. To tinker with the process by having government bodies dictate the rules for rearing children properly is like playing with the same fire that recently destroyed 2 totalitarian regimes. While truly needy families may require assistance, this must be provided with as little intrusion as possible. Nature has a way of turning upon intruders - even well-meaning ones. Parents beware.

[Aldo Bernardo is Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus at Binghamton University and chairman of ESTEEM, a state-wide grass roots movement that monitors education reform efforts.]