Former Gov. Jim Hunt, who devoted most of his last two terms to raising the horizons of North Carolina's children through improving public education, knew that Smart Start was a launching pad for youngsters that could help them soar later in life. His program, a public-private partnership that was and is statewide, started with birth and with the goal of helping children be happier and healthier and ready to learn once they got to school.
Hunt's successor, Mike Easley, added More at Four to provide help for at-risk 4-year-olds who, without pre-kindergarten attention, might well be put on the path of frustration and failure.
Republican legislators have gone after both programs to some degree, citing budget concerns, but supporters of the efforts rightly wonder if the GOP leaders are really up to slapping down Democratic initiatives. Or, if they simply don't believe it is government's role to help children and families - a curious posture for people who would describe themselves as public servants.
But with regard to early childhood initiatives, supporters have more than common sense on their side.
Proof, pudding
Many studies have affirmed the value of early childhood intervention in terms of how children who benefit perform in school.
But a study from the respected Frank Porter Graham Development Institute at UNC-Chapel Hill, published this week in a research journal, followed over 100 babies from birth until they turned 30. The children were from low-income families.
Half of them, from when they were born through kindergarten, were the beneficiaries of good early childhood care and education. The rest, in a control group, got whatever they were provided by parents.
The findings, that the children with early care have done better in their lives in a multitude of ways, would be common sense to most people. (Of course, there are exceptions.) But the institute has the goods, the numbers, the findings.
These findings are no small matter, as a case moves through the North Carolina courts. The disagreement centers on whether a cap on the state's ability to help pre-K 4-year-olds through its taxpayer-sponsored programs violates earlier court rulings that the state has to provide help because it's part of the constitutional guarantee of a sound, basic education for every child. Wake Superior Court Judge Howard Manning Jr. calls it the law. Republicans in the legislature call it "judicial activism."
The results
Here's the gist of the study's findings: Kids with good child care, etc., scored better on tests, were more likely to go to college, worked more consistently and were on public assistance less. That's strong evidence for the advocates of public help with early childhood programs. It is an investment, not a "welfare" program as some critics claim.
That's why (in addition to trying to carry out the law as directed by Manning) Gov. Beverly Perdue rightly ordered her administration to find ways to expand the state's pre-K program to include all children who are eligible. Some 32,000 kids were enrolled in the state's program in 2010, but it's estimated twice that many could qualify under the requirement of being "at risk."
That the state should answer that need, should step up to help all eligible children, ought not to be subject to debate. Not doing the right thing to help youngsters who might otherwise have a much higher risk of failing in schools ... and then in life? That should be unthinkable.
What's hard to understand about how a relatively small investment now might help a child become a productive, successful citizen instead of someone who spends a lifetime in frustration and dependant on public assistance? It's not hard to understand. It's the right thing to do. And as the Graham Institute demonstrated, it's the smart thing to do.
