April 2001No. 01-3

OCPA Policy PaperA Report from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

Guarantee of Quality ScholarshipThe Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc. is committed to delivering the highest quality and most reliable

research on Oklahoma issues. OCPA guarantees that all original factual data are true and correct and thatinformation attributed to other sources is accurately represented.

OCPA encourages rigorous critique of its research. If the accuracy of any material fact or reference to anindependent source is questioned and brought to OCPA�s attention with supporting evidence, OCPA will respondin writing. If an error exists, it will be noted in an errata sheet that will accompany all subsequent distribution ofthe publication, which constitutes the complete and final remedy under this guarantee.

Blueprint for a Nanny Stateby Darcy Ann Olsen

The Governor�s Task Force on Early Childhood Education has produced nothing lessthan a blueprint for a state-run childcare, health care, and education system forOklahoma children from the womb through age five. And though all reasonablepeople are certainly �for the children,� concerned parents and taxpayers should askthemselves: Do we really want to empower bureaucrats to run expensive programsof questionable benefit that parents neither want nor need?

2

Governor Frank Keating last year established aTask Force on Early Childhood Education to �as-sess the needs for early childhood education ... anddevelop a proposal and implementation recom-mendation to the Governor.�1 Within the year, theTask Force issued its report. And this year, Keating�sproposed budget contains $500,000 in seed moneyto begin funding the Task Force�s initiatives. Whatwill the implementation of this proposal mean forOklahoma�s families?

The Task Force ReportOn the surface, the Task Force�s vision is hardly

disagreeable. The report simply states that �AllOklahoma children will be healthy, eager to learn,and ready to succeed by the time they enterschool.�2 Few people want anything less for chil-dren. And the authors put their agenda in reason-able terms, promising to coordinate existing pro-grams, to work with the private sector, and toenable families to make �their own informed andresponsible choices.�3 Yet such sensible rhetoricdoes not square with the Task Force�s actual recom-mendations. A thorough examination of the reportreveals that, if implemented, the plan will set up theskeleton for a governmental body empowered to�oversee� every imaginable aspect of child rearing,from pregnancy planning to parenting classes topreschool.

Consider just a few of the recommendations:4 �Promote the healthy timing and spacing of

births ...�4 �Assure that each new family having a child in

an Oklahoma hospital or birthing center re-ceives a personal contact within twenty-four toforty-eight hours of the birth of their child, toreceive information about child development ...�

4 �Provide new Oklahoma mothers informationabout the benefits of breast feeding ... for thepurpose of increasing the proportion of Okla-homa mothers who breast feed their infants.�

Given such recommendations, the Task Force�sclaim that it �does not take a �government-knows-best� approach� to child rearing appears to be littlemore than cover for a proposal Oklahomans wouldassuredly reject.4 And those examples are justthree of more than 100 directives contained in thereport.

As a first step, the Task Force recommends estab-lishing several new state-level agencies, includingone to �set standards, evaluate progress andensure accountability in early childhood services,�

a second for �assuring the engagement of thepublic in the care and education of children underthe age of five,� a third for �assuring quality childcare for all children under the age of five,� a fourthfor �promoting and assuring all children under theage of five have access to quality prekindergartenprograms,� and a fifth �with ultimate responsibilityfor the health care of young children.�

Hundreds of tasks will then fall to the variousagencies, including:4 �Focus additional funding and resources on

children from birth to 3 years of age ... theexpansion of First Start slots that provide full-day, full-year child care for children birth to agethree.�

4 �Expand early childhood programs to all dis-tricts to serve all four-year-olds ...�

4 �Provide birth control services for women at riskof substance abuse ...�

4 �Increase child access to health care by puttingmore health care services in schools and childcare programs ...�

4 �Fund preventive mental health services forhigh-risk families ...�

4 �Improve funding for early child care initia-tives ...�

4 �Increase reimbursement of family child carehomes ...�

4 �Develop a state-operated child care center forstate employees and low-income families ...�

Despite its assertions to the contrary, the TaskForce has produced nothing less than a blueprintfor a state-run childcare, health care, and educa-tion system for children from before birth throughage five.

Current ProgramsThe report repeats many of the claims and

themes heard during the national child care debateunder the Clinton administration, most of whichwere wholly unsubstantiated or exaggerated forpolitical purposes.5 One of those claims is thattaxpayers are �under investing� in young children.6

Setting aside for the moment the question ofwhether or to what degree government should besetting childhood policies, Oklahoma�s involvementwith young children already exceeds that of manyother states. For instance, Oklahoma is one of onlythree states that runs preschools for all four-year-olds regardless of family circumstance. In addition,Oklahoma runs more than 30 programs for infants,toddlers, and preschoolers including First Start,

3

Even Start, Early Head Start, Head Start, Thera-peutic Nurseries, Oklahoma Parents as Teachers,ABC Clinic, SoonerStart, Children First, HealthyFamilies, Child Guidance, Early Childhood Devel-opment and Parent Education Program, Success by6, Reaching for the STARS, TEACH, and the ChildCare Resource and Referral System.

What�s the price tag for this elaborate system ofintervention? In 2000, Oklahoma spent$472,905,000 in federal and state dollars for earlychildhood education for children under the age offive.7 That�s an estimated $2,033 per child, or$9,036 per child in poverty.8 Although the TaskForce doesn�t say what the �right� level of spendingis, Oklahoma is already paying enough to sendevery infant, toddler,and preschooler inpoverty to a full-timeearly education facility,or to send every infant,toddler, andpreschooler to schoolpart-time.9

Current spendinglooks even more exces-sive when one consid-ers that most infants,toddlers, andpreschoolers in Okla-homa are primarilycared for by a parent athome. Forty percent ofOklahoma childrenunder age six havemothers who stay homeand 38 percent have a mother who works part-time;only 22 percent have a mother who works full-time.10 The programs proposed by the Task Force,such as state-run preschool and day care, discrimi-nate against the majority of families who care fortheir children at home. In fact the data show theTask Force agenda would have the perverse effectof making the vast majority of families subsidizethe child care and early education choices of thefew.

Task-Force ClaimsThe Task Force claims that state-run early care

and education will pay off in the long run for allcitizens. �Dramatic returns will also result fromdecreased child abuse and neglect, higher schoolachievement and graduation rates, higher adult

earnings, increased taxes paid, decreased welfaredependence, a better prepared workforce, andmore. An effective, well planned, early childhoodcare and education system will, over time,strengthen families, assure the success of Okla-homa children and save public and private re-sources.�11

Those promises hearken back to 1965 whenPresident Lyndon Johnson enacted the federalHead Start program, promising to end cyclicalpoverty. �Five- and six-year-old children are inheri-tors of poverty�s curse and not its creators,� saidJohnson. �Unless we act these children will pass iton to the next generation. ... This program this yearmeans that 30 million man-years � the combined

lifespan of these young-sters � will be spentproductively andrewardingly, rather thanwasted in tax-supportedinstitutions or in wel-fare-supported leth-argy.�12

The theory went thenas it does today, thatputting kids on the�right track� will getthem to the �rightdestination.� It soundsso reasonable. Yetexperience with hun-dreds of early interven-tion programs showsthere is little, if any, linkbetween early child-

hood education and factors such as future schoolperformance.13

Perry PreschoolSupporters of state intervention, like the church

leaders who once dismissed the Copernican theoryof the solar system, prefer their convictions to theevidence. They invariably point to the Perry Pre-school Project to show that preschool interventionsconfer lasting benefits on kids. That 1960s projecttracked 123 children deemed �at risk� through age27. Half of them attended preschool as three- andfour-year olds, the other half didn�t. According tothe research team, �Program participation hadpositive effects on adult crime, earnings, wealth,welfare dependence, and commitment to mar-riage.�14 The Perry research team seized on these

State and federal spending ondevelopment and early education forOklahoma children under age 5

Source: Governor�s Task Force Report, footnote 66, p. 47 and Attach-ment no. 3, Oklahoma�s Early Childhood Education Investment, 2000.

FederalSpending$338,971,000

OklahomaSpending

$133,935,000

28%

72%

4

results to produce the oft-cited �fact� that preschoolprovides �taxpayers a return on investment of $7.16on the dollar.�15 This is the same return-on-invest-ment figure promised by the Task Force.

But the Task Force neglected to mention the restof the story. It wasn�t long before independent peerreviewers uncovered sizablesampling and methodologi-cal flaws in the Perry study.For example, preschoolparticipants, but not thecontrol group, had to have aparent at home during theday, which might haveinflated the Perry findings.More important, after almost40 years, the Perry resultshave never been repli-cated.16 Even if Perry werereplicable, the projectworked only with severelydisadvantagedpreschoolers, rendering thefindings irrelevant for themajority of American chil-dren who live in two-parent,middle-class families.Undeterred, both the Cali-fornia Department of Educa-tion and the New York StateBoard of Regents, and nowOklahoma�s Task Force,have relied on the spuriouscost-benefit analysis togarner support for theirstate-run preschool initia-tives.17

Head StartProponents also shrug off

inconvenient findings fromHead Start. Like many of theinitiatives in the Task Forcereport, Head Start is largelypublic school based, servesthree- and four-year-olds,and espouses the mission of school readiness. Asthe nation�s largest and longest-running preschoolprogram, Head Start is filled with lessons foreducators.

The most comprehensive synthesis of Head Startimpact studies to date was published in 1985 by the

Department of Health and Human Services. Re-searchers found that by the time children enter thesecond grade, any initial cognitive, social, andemotional gains by Head Start children havevanished. �In the long run, cognitive andsocioemotional test scores of former Head Start

students do not remainsuperior to those of disad-vantaged children who didnot attend Head Start.� Inother words, by secondgrade, the achievement testscores, IQs, achievement-motivation scores, self-esteem, and social behav-ior scores of Head Startstudents are indistinguish-able from those of theirdemographically compa-rable peers. The net gain tochildren and taxpayers iszero.18

But the establishmenthas clung to the study�sremnants: although gainswere not maintained overtime, some children hadexperienced short-termboosts. This, they argued,was Head Start�s job. Ifschools couldn�t maintaingains, that reflected aproblem with the schools,not the program. Thatcertainly sounds reason-able. But, it�s also reason-able for people to questionHead Start�s utility. Ifstudents test the same withor without Head Start aftera year or two, what�s thepoint of sending themthrough the program in thefirst place?

More recently, the Gen-eral Accounting Office

reported that after spending more than $44 billionover 35 years, there is still no evidence that HeadStart benefits children in any lasting manner.19 Thisis consistent with research on early interventionthat shows programs can result in short-term gainsto children but confer no lasting benefits.20

The plan will set up theskeleton for a governmentalbody empowered to�oversee� every imaginableaspect of child rearing, frompregnancy planning toparenting classes topreschool. Oklahoma wouldevolve from a state whereparents know best to onewhere politicians know best� a direction rejected bymost Oklahomans and oneunsuited to free people in afree society.

5

GeorgiaIf the actual proves the possible, policymakers

should consider the nation�s most recent experiencewith state-run preschool. In 1995 Georgia becamethe first state to fund statewide preschool for allfour-year-olds regardless of family income. Theprogram is funded by thestate lottery, and preschoolproviders include publicschools, Head Start agen-cies, non-profit childcareagencies, for-profitchildcare agencies,churches and privateschools. Programs operate aminimum of five days aweek and for a minimum ofsix and one-half hours perday.

Funded by Georgia�sOffice of School Readiness,researchers at GeorgiaState University recentlycompleted the second yearof a longitudinal study ofchildren in the universalpreschool program. Usingthe Georgia KindergartenAssessment Program,researchers assessed theprogress of participatingchildren during their kinder-garten year in five domains:communicative capability,logical-mathematical capa-bility, physical capability,personal capability andsocial capability. Findingsrevealed that 94 percent ofthe students were reportedas capable in the first andsecond areas, followed by97 percent in the third, 93percent in the fourth and 94percent in the fifth. Studentscores for this sample werethen compared to all students across the state, andresearchers concluded, �The study sample does notdiffer from the entire kindergarten population inGKAP capability scores.�21 In other words, pre-school conferred no apparent gains on participat-ing children.

Reports also show that GKAP scores are essen-tially the same as they were before the adoption ofpublic preschool. Georgia State School Superinten-dent Linda Schrenko expressed the state�s disap-pointment, saying, �The only message you can getfrom it is that our kindergarten non-ready rate is the

same, regardless of whatwe do.�22

It is important to note thatthe vast majority of studentsin Georgia and across theU.S., or better than 90percent of students, are�ready to learn� accordingto the GKAP and similarassessment tests taken atkindergarten entry. Suchhigh scores certainly castdoubt on claims that mostchildren are not �ready tolearn� when they enterschool.

AbecedarianThe Task Force�s recom-

mendations also drawheavily on the results of theAbecedarian project.Launched in 1972,Abecedarian is the onlyearly intervention programthat appears to have had alasting, meaningful impacton children. Most childrenentered that lavish experi-ment at five months of age.Year round, the childrenspent eight hours a day, fivedays a week in an educa-tional daycare center. Theyalso received free medicalcare, dietary supplements,social service support, andextra support in school fromkindergarten through eighthgrade. What the

Abecedarian children really had was home awayfrom home.

The project�s former administrative director, RonHaskins, points out that Abecedarian was con-ducted under ideal circumstances with skilledresearchers, capable staffs with lots of training,

Oklahoma�sinvolvement with youngchildren alreadyexceeds that of manyother states. At $473million annually,Oklahoma is alreadypaying enough to sendevery infant, toddler,and preschooler toschool part-time.

6

and ample budgets. �It seems unwise to claim thatthe benefits produced by such exemplary programswould necessarily be produced by ordinary pre-school programs conducted in communities acrossthe United States,� he concludes.23 Haskins iscorrect � it is highly unlikely that regular earlyintervention programs couldever replicate those results.In 40 years, no other publicor private program has.

Moreover, theAbecedarian project, likeHead Start and PerryPreschool, worked withseverely �at-risk� children.There is no evidence what-soever that such preschoolprograms benefit the aver-age child any more thanordinary parenting. In fact,the research teams talked,played and read to thechildren � inexpensiveactivities routinely carriedout by millions of parentsevery day. Moreover, thereis a large body of evidence,none of which was weighedor considered by the TaskForce, that suggests thatearly education and daycare outside the home mayhave negative conse-quences for most children.24

What Have We Learned?In 1965, only 10 percent of

the nation�s four-year-oldsattended preschool. Today,60 percent do.25 Despite thistrend, student achievementwas higher in 1965 than it istoday.26 While the relation-ship between inputs andoutcomes is more compli-cated than this linearanalysis suggests, it is nonetheless reasonable toexpect increased preschool enrollment to have hadsome noticeable impact on student achievement, ifthat were possible.

As a group, many professional educators haveresisted coming to terms with the mounting evi-

dence that the �promise� of early education is anempty one. But a few have been honest enough toconsider the clear implications of decades ofexperience and research. Preschool enthusiastswould be wise to consider the views of one of themost outstanding scholars in the child development

field: Edward Zigler, co-founder of Head Start anddirector of the Bush Centerin Child Development andSocial Policy at YaleUniversity. Zigler sayscandidly, �We simplycannot inoculate childrenin one year against theravages of a life of depri-vation.� As far back as1987, when universalpreschool was on thepolitical scene, he noted,�This is not the first timeuniversal preschool educa-tion has been proposed. ...Then, as now, the argu-ments in favor of preschooleducation were that itwould reduce schoolfailure, lower dropoutrates, increase test scores,and produce a generationof more competent highschool graduates. ...Preschool education willachieve none of theseresults.�27

What Zigler recognizedis that a child�s academicperformance and personalgrowth turn on a lot morethan the preschool years.Factors such as genetics,family, neighborhood, andlife experiences from birthonward easily outweighthe influence of preschool.Preschools may teach

children how to count, follow directions, and getalong; Zigler himself favors preschool as a meansto achieve school readiness. But preschool aloneconfers no lasting advantages. To put all childrenon an equal footing would require genetic engi-neering, surrogate parents, and for many kids, as

Like the churchleaders who oncedismissed theCopernican theory ofthe solar system,supporters of stateintervention prefertheir convictions tothe evidence.

7

Abecedarian demonstrates, homes away fromhome.

Good NewsUnderlying moves for more government interven-

tion is the mistaken idea that today�s children aren�tprepared for kindergarten.Contrary to the Task Force�sassertions, however, theevidence is strong that thevast majority of Americanchildren start school �readyto learn.� According to theDepartment of Educationreport �America�s Kinder-gartners,� U.S. kindergart-ners have a strong start.Upon kindergarten entry, 94percent of children areproficient at recognizingnumbers, shapes andcounting to ten; 92 percentare eager to learn; and, allbut three percent are ingood health.�28 Such mea-sures indicate thatAmerica�s flexible approachto early education is work-ing.

America�s young childrenalso perform well whenmeasured against theirEuropean counterparts.Consider France, England,Spain and Belgium �where more than 90 percentof four-year-olds attendpublic preschool.29 Interna-tional tests show that byage nine, when the benefitsof preschool should beapparent, American chil-dren regularly outscore theirEuropean peers on tests ofreading, math, and sci-ence.30 It�s only in the lateryears, when most American children have beenattending public schools of questionable quality,that students abroad pull ahead.31 If there is truly acrisis in our public schools, as there appears to be,it makes no sense to expand the same failingframework to educate infants, toddlers, and

preschoolers.While American children start school better

prepared than ever, the overall performance ofolder students continues to decline. Tests show thatby eighth grade, Americans start sliding down theinternational curve. By 12th grade, they hit bottom.

The reasons for that de-cline are debatable. Butone thing is certain; it�stime to stop blamingpreschoolers for thenation�s education woes.

The Wrong DirectionThe desirability of state-

run childcare and educa-tion programs should nothinge only on whethersuch programs work, oreven apparent need. Morebasic is the moral questionof whether the governmentshould entrench itself stillfurther in the care andschooling of children.

On this question, theTask Force is swimmingagainst a powerful tide.Witness the increasingdemand across the statesand at the federal level foralternatives to govern-ment-run schools, and thegrowth of multi-million-dollar private scholarshipfunds, homeschooling,voucher initiatives and taxcredits. In just ten years, 36states have passed lawsallowing charter schools,three have implementedvoucher programs, andfour have created taxcredits for educationalexpenses. Parents areworking to loosen the

government�s grip on education, even as politiciansare seeking to extend that hold to infants, toddlersand preschoolers.

It is not coincidental that parents� desire forgreater choice in education coincides with a wide-spread belief that educating and caring for chil-

There is a large bodyof evidence, none ofwhich was weighedor considered by theTask Force, thatsuggests that earlyeducation and daycare outside the homemay have negativeconsequences formost children.

8

dren is a parent�s responsibility, not government�s.According to �Necessary Compromises,� a reportfrom the non-partisan public opinion researchcenter Public Agenda, more than seven in 10 par-ents with children age five or under say they shouldbe responsible for paying the costs of caring fortheir own young children;only 24 percent say alltaxpayers should help paythe costs. Even a majority oflow-income parents � thoseearning no more than$25,000 a year � believebearing the cost is essen-tially their responsibility andnot society�s (62 versus 33percent). The same surveyreports that although sevenin 10 self-proclaimed�children�s advocates� saythat the best direction forgovernment policy to takewhen it comes to child careis to move toward a univer-sal, national child caresystem, only 27 percent ofparents of young childrenshare that vision.32

The Right ResponseOklahoma�s legislators

could do more for childrenby doing less. For instance,a simple income tax cutwould help most parentshave more money to spendfor their priorities. As Gover-nor Keating put it in hisState of the State address,�We understand that themoney we spend here is notour money. It belongs to themen and women of our statewho earn it day-by-day,hour-by-hour, for the pur-pose of putting their chil-dren through school, permitting themselves to havea safe and secure retirement.�33 Estimates showthat an income tax cut would save evenOklahoma�s poorest families hundreds of dollarsper year.34 Families could use that money to bettermeet their own needs.

But tax cuts are not enough. Legislators mustreform the K-12 system.

While American children get off to a runningstart, school performance declines as they move upthrough grade school and on to high school. Ameri-can fourth-graders outperform nearly all of their

European peers on tests ofreading, math, and science.By eighth grade, U.S. stu-dents start sliding down theinternational curve. Bytwelfth grade, they hitbottom. Today�s studentsalso perform poorly relativeto their parents� generation;domestic test scores havebeen slipping for threedecades. At least part ofthat decline can be tracedto the nation�s severelytroubled public schools.

Under the current system,the state assigns children toschools, bureaucrats picktextbooks, arbitrary stan-dards drive curriculum �and the establishmentpasses the buck whenstudents fail. The so-calledready-to-learn crisis is justthe latest excuse in a de-cades-old blame game.Since 1970, per pupil expen-ditures have doubled, classsizes have shrunk, andteacher�s salaries havegrown. Despite those infu-sions of spending and theadoption of countlessreforms, student achieve-ment has stagnated anddeclined.

Oklahoma�s legislatorscan change that. Theyshould start by adoptingwhat are known as �school

choice� measures. School choice takes the politicsout of schooling by putting parents in charge. Theclassic school choice plan would return to parentsa part of their state taxes, or a portion of currentstate expenditures, so they could pay tuition at anyschool of their choice.35 School choice means

If there is truly acrisis in our publicschools, as thereappears to be, itmakes no sense toexpand the samefailing frameworkto educate infants,toddlers, andpreschoolers.

9

About the AuthorDarcy Ann Olsen is director of education and child policy at the Cato Institute

(www.cato.org). She has worked extensively on children�s issues, including child care,preschool, school-age child care, and social services. Prior to joining Cato, Olsenworked for three years as a transitional house manager and drug counselor for the D.C.Coalition for the Homeless. She has testified before Congress and appeared on numer-ous television and radio programs, including National Public Radio, Politically Incorrect,

Inside Politics, The O�Reilly Factor, The Early Show, The Today Show, and CBS and NBC Nightly News.Olsen holds a bachelor�s degree from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and amaster�s degree in international education from New York University.

educators must deliver the goods now � not in five,10 or 20 years � or watch their students leave forbetter schools, taking their money with them.

Defenders of the status quo argue that expecta-tions for schools are too high � schools can�t beexpected to compensate for poor parenting, andsome students will always fail. Although there isundoubtedly some truth to those sentiments, thereis substantial evidence that even children at highrisk of failure can be helped. For example, since1990 nearly 100 public and private scholarshipprograms have given children from low-incomefamilies the chance to trade in their governmenteducation for a private one, resulting in significant,measurable gains on achievement tests. Thosegains appear in both privately sponsored programslike the Washington Scholarship Fund in Washing-ton, D.C., and publicly sponsored programs likethose in Milwaukee and Cleveland. More than adozen studies by independent research organiza-tions have shown that choice programs consistentlyconfer positive benefits on students: parentalinvolvement increases, student achievement im-proves, and both public and private schools work toattract students by improving services.36

Critics say choice proposals are anti-publiceducation. But school choice is not about favoringpublic or private education. It is about favoringchildren by letting parents decide what works fortheir kids. When parents control education spend-ing, schools that can�t teach will be shut down;schools where children excel and look forward tolearning will flourish. Perhaps because parents areconcerned only with their children�s well-being andare unburdened by political considerations, theyhave the good sense not to throw money at pro-grams and schools that don�t work.

Every legislator should work to return educationdollars, education choice, and education powerback to parents. Through school choice, legislatorscan improve educational opportunities for allchildren.

The Bottom LineThe Task Force would like to frame the debate

over this proposal by asking whether you�re for oragainst children, but that�s an absurd question.We�re all for children. The real question is: Why onearth would anyone seriously propose helpingchildren by taking millions of dollars from familiesso bureaucrats can run programs that few parentswant or need?

There�s nothing wrong with arming new motherswith the latest information on healthy child rearingpractices � this is information most mothers seek.Witness the growth of parenting magazines such asBabyTalk, Parenting, and Family Life, and thediscussion on popular talk and radio shows suchas Dr. Laura and Oprah Winfrey. Nor is anythingwrong with helping families cope with stress,financial troubles, or child care situations � ourculture is full of mediating structures that do justthat. Consider the church that provides day care ona sliding fee, the neighbor who comes throughwhen the provider doesn�t, and the aunt whopitches in when finances are tight. What�s wrongwith the Task Force�s proposal is that it gives statebureaucrats the power to oversee, regulate, andcontrol these practices. If the legislature imple-ments the Task Force�s recommendations, Okla-homa will evolve from a state where parents knowbest to one where politicians know best � a direc-tion rejected by most citizens and one unsuited tofree people in a free society. J

10

Endnotes1 �Governor�s Task Force on Early ChildhoodEducation: Report and Recommendations forOklahoma Infants, Toddlers and PreschoolChildren (from Birth through Age Four) and theirFamilies,� December 14, 2000, Attachment no. 1:Executive Order 2000-04, p. 95. The report isavailable at http://www.governor.state.ok.us/earlychildhoodtfreport.pdf.

2 Ibid., p. 45.3 Ibid., p. 6.4 Ibid., p. 6.5 See, for instance, Darcy Ann Olsen, �The Ad-vancing Nanny State: Why the GovernmentShould Stay out of Child Care,� Cato InstitutePolicy Analysis no. 285, October 23, 1997, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-285.html

6 Governor�s Task Force Report, p. 5.7 Ibid., p. 117, 119.8 According to the Governor�s Task Force Report,there were an estimated 232,600 children underage 5 in 1999; 52,335 of them lived in poverty.The total number of children under age 5 isprojected to decrease over the next 9 years to220,196 by 2010. Ibid., Tables 1 and 7.

9 According to the Census Bureau, the averagechildcare cost for families who pay for childcareis $4,420 per year. Sharon Kagan, past presidentof the National Association for the Education ofYoung Children, estimates the cost of highquality preschool at $5,800 per child. See KristinSmith, �Who�s Minding the Kids?� Census Bu-reau Current Population Report P70-70, issuedOctober 2000, p. 26; and Sharon Kagan andNancy Cohen, �Funding and Financing EarlyCare and Education: A Review of Issues andStrategies,� Bush Center in Child Developmentand Social Policy, Yale University, 1997, p. 10.

10 National Center for Children in Poverty, �Mapand Track: 1998 Edition,� p. 194.

11 Governor�s Task Force Report, p. 25.12 Lyndon B. Johnson, Public Papers of the Presi-

dents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson,Book 1, January 1 to May 31, 1965 (Washington:Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 556.

13 For a review of relevant research see Darcy AnnOlsen, �Universal Preschool is No Golden Ticket:Why Government Should not Enter the Preschool

Business,� Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 333,February 9, 1999, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-333es.html

14 Lawrence J. Schweinhart, �Lasting Benefits ofPreschool Programs,� ERIC Digest EDO-PS-94-2,January 1994, http://ericps.ed.uiuc.edu/eece/pubs/digests/1994/schwei94.html

15 Ibid. For the Task Force�s discussion of PerryPreschool and the Abecedarian projects see theGovernor�s Task Force Report, pp. 23-28.

16 For further discussion, see Darcy Ann Olsen,�Universal Preschool is No Golden Ticket,� CatoInstitute Policy Analysis no. 333, February 9,1999, pp. 11-14.

17 Ibid., pp. 7-9.18 Ibid., pp. 17-20.19 General Accounting Office, �Head Start: Re-

search Provides Little Information on Impact ofCurrent Program,� GAO/HEHS-97-59, April 1997.

20 See Darcy Ann Olsen, �Universal Preschool is NoGolden Ticket.�

21 Laura Henderson, Kathleen Basile, and GaryHenry, �Prekindergarten Longitudinal Study1997-1998 School Year Annual Report,� GeorgiaState University Applied Research Center Schoolof Policy Studies, April 1999, pp. 29-40.

22 James Salzer, �School Readiness the Same forTots; Results Unchanged Despite Pre-K,� TheFlorida Times-Union, November 1, 1999.

23 Discussion with author and Ron Haskins, �Be-yond Metaphor: The Efficacy of Early ChildhoodEducation,� American Psychologist 44, no. 2(February 1989): 280.

24 See, for instance, David Elkind, Miseducation:Preschoolers at Risk (1987; New York: Knopf,1997), Stanley Greenspan and Beryl Benderly,The Growth of the Mind, (Reading, Mass.: Per-seus Books, 1997), Patricia Morgan, Who NeedsParents? The Effects of Childcare and EarlyEducation on Children in Britain and the USA,(London: Institute for Economic Affairs, 1996),and Raymond S. Moore, �When Delay Isn�tProcrastination,� in Continuing Issues in EarlyChildhood Education, (Columbus, Ohio: MerrillPublishing Company, 1990).

25 Thirty-eight percent of American 3-year-olds alsoattend preschool. Mark Littman and DeirdreGaquin, Education Statistics of the United

11

States: First Edition, 1999, (Washington, D.C.:Bernan Press, 1999) pp. 1-13.

26 For instance, SAT scores dropped from 543verbal and 516 math in 1966 to 505 and 511 in1998. For discussion and additional measures,see Andrew Coulson, Market Education, (Lon-don: Transaction Publishers, 1999) pp. 177-218.

27 Edward F. Zigler, �Formal Schooling for Four-Year-Olds? No� in Early Schooling: The NationalDebate, ed. Sharon L. Kagan and Edward F.Zigler (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,1987), pp. 36-37.

28 U.S. Department of Education, �America�s Kin-dergartners,� NCES 2000-070, February 2000.

29 Sherlie Svestka, �Financing Preschool for AllChildren,� ERIC Digest, ED389471, December1995.

30 National Center for Education Statistics, �El-ementary and Secondary Education: An Interna-tional Perspective,� Department of Education,March 2000, pp. 50-56.

31 Ibid.32 Public Agenda, �Necessary Compromises,� 2000.

For more information, e-mailinfo@publicagenda.org

33 Governor Keating�s address is on-line at http://www.governor.state.ok.us/sos01text.htm

34 Steve Beebe, �Oklahoma Income Tax Hits thePoor, Too,� Perspective: Oklahoma Council ofPublic Affairs, vol. 8, no. 1, January 2001.

35 For more information on education reform seeDarcy Ann Olsen and Matthew J. Brouillette,�Reclaiming Our Schools: Increasing ParentalControl of Education through the UniversalEducation Credit,� Cato Institute Policy Analysisno. 388, December 6, 2000. For information onthe history of government involvement in school-ing and the benefits of market-based education,see Coulson, Market Education.

36 See, for instance, Jay P. Greene, �A Survey ofResults from Voucher Experiments: Where WeAre and What We Know,� Civic Report: Manhat-tan Institute, July 2000; Philip Vassallo, �MoreThan Grades: How Choice Boosts ParentalInvolvement and Benefits Children,� Cato Insti-tute Policy Analysis no. 383, October 26, 2000,http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-383es.html

Oklahoma Council

of Public Affairs100 W

. Wilshire �

Suite C-3Oklahom

a City, OK 73116C

hange Service R

equested

NO

NP

RO

FIT OR

G.

U.S

. PO

STA

GE

PAID

OK

LA. C

ITY, OK

PE

RM

IT NO

. 2573

The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc. is an independent public policy organization. No substantial part of the activities of OCPA includes attem

pting toinfluence legislation, and OCPA does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statem

ents), any political campaign on behalf

of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

Board of TrusteesGreg S. Allen H Enid

Blake Arnold H Oklahoma CityWilliam M. Avery H Oklahoma City

Steve W. Beebe H DuncanG.T. Blankenship H Oklahoma City

John A. Brock H TulsaDavid R. Brown, M.D. H Oklahoma City

Aaron Burleson H AltusEd L. Calhoon, M.D. H Beaver

Jim Cantrell H LawtonRobert H. Chitwood H Tulsa

Tom Coburn, M.D. H MuskogeePaul A. Cox H Oklahoma City

Josephine Freede H Oklahoma CityKent Frizzell H Claremore

John T. Hanes H Oklahoma CityRalph Harvey H Oklahoma City

Paul H. Hitch H GuymonHenry F. Kane H Bartlesville

Thurman Magbee H Oklahoma CityTom H. McCasland, III H Duncan

Lew Meibergen H EnidRonald L. Mercer H Bethany

Lloyd Noble, II H TulsaPatrick Rooney H Oklahoma City

Joseph F. Rumsey, Jr. H Oklahoma CityRichard Sias H Oklahoma City

John Snodgrass H ArdmoreWilliam Thurman, M.D. H Oklahoma CityBetty Lou Lee Upsher H Oklahoma City

Lew Ward H EnidGary W. Wilson, M.D. H Lawton

Daniel J. Zaloudek H Tulsa

Adjunct ScholarsWill Clark, Ph.D.

University of Oklahoma

David Deming, Ph.D.University of Oklahoma

J. Rufus Fears, Ph.D.University of Oklahoma

Bobbie L. Foote, Ph.D.University of Oklahoma (Ret.)

E. Scott Henley, Ph.D., J.D.Oklahoma City University

James E. Hibdon, Ph.D.University of Oklahoma (Ret.)

Russell W. Jones, Ph.D.University of Central Oklahoma

Andrew W. Lester, J.D.Oklahoma City University (Adjunct)

David L. May, Ph.D.Oklahoma City University

Ann Nalley, Ph.D.Cameron University

Bruce Newman, Ph.D.Western Oklahoma State College

Stafford North, Ph.D.Oklahoma Christian University

Paul A. Rahe, Ph.D.University of Tulsa

W. Robert Reed, Ph.D.University of Oklahoma

Michael Scaperlanda, J.D.University of Oklahoma

Andrew C. Spiropoulos, J.D.Oklahoma City University

Daniel Sutter, Ph.D.University of Oklahoma

Legal CounselDeBee Gilchrist & Lidia H Oklahoma City

StaffBrett A. Magbee H Executive DirectorBrandon Dutcher H Research DirectorChip Carter H Development Director

Marilyn Tardibono H Admin. Assistant

The Oklahoma Council of PublicAffairs, Inc. is an independent,nonprofit, nonpartisan research andeducational organization devoted toimproving the quality of life for allOklahomans by promoting soundsolutions to state and local policyquestions. For more information onthis policy paper or other OCPApublications, please contact:

100 W. Wilshire, Suite C-3Oklahoma City, OK 73116

(405) 843-9212FAX: (405) 843-9436www.ocpathink.orgocpa@ocpathink.org