Phil Valentine, in his weekly column in the Tennessean, took time out of his busy schedule to scold both Bredesen and parents for the decline in parental responsibility when it comes to early-childhood education. According to “Uncle Phil,” the move towards more pre-K is an “onslaught of the nanny state. Bureaucrats look down their noses at the unwashed masses with an attitude that they’re too stupid to take care of their own kids. Being poor should not be an excuse for being a sorry parent, but we are incrementally making it so.”
Perhaps he is right, but at the same time, just because Phil likes to read bed-time stories to his kids, doesn’t mean that we as a society should abdicate our responsibility in ensuring that every drunken accident has the chance to live a quality life, regardless of how unfit their parents are.
Jim Grinstead at Progressive Nashville takes Valentine to task, saying “[it] would do him well to spend six months as a low-income parent to understand the challenges they face, why government help is needed and, yes, how parents can fulfill the responsibility they have for helping their children get a good education.”
Part of Phil’s problem I think, comes from a complete lack of perspective, and a glamorization of how “things used to be”. Valentine says that “[i]t used to be that poor families valued an education just as much as rich families. In some cases even more because parents understood that a good education could provide their children a better life than what they had.” In what universe? Yeah, I know Hollywood has glamorized the notion of the hard-working father who toiled away so his kids could go to college, but the reality is that more kids are graduating High School now than ever before. Whereas in yesteryear, fathers might expect their sons to take up the same trade as them, or work at the same town mill that they did; parents now, more than ever, expect of their kids to at the very least graduate High School, and most expect their kids to go to college. There is the same problem with Conservatives and their imaginative re-imagining of the immigrant experience in the early 1900s…the truth is, children of immigrants learn the native language and assimilate into the culture faster than ever before.
Growing up in earlier times, it was perfectly acceptable for a poor/lower-middle class kid not to even contemplate going to college, but when I went to school, regardless of your socio-economic status, it was drilled in our heads from Kindergarten on that you had two choices in life; go to a four-year college or flip burgers at McDonald’s. Just like the propaganda in the war on drugs, the reality is far from the truth. The truth is a person’s personality and work ethic will be a better determinant of how far they can get in life. Granted, there is generally going to be a glass ceiling for non-college graduates in the white collar world, but people who apply themselves to a certain trade or craft can get extremely far in life without a $20,000+ piece of paper to validate their life.
Ultimately, there is a happy medium somewhere in between the views by some that the Government should replace the role of the parent, and the views that if only we didn’t offer programs like Pre-K, that parents would take more responsibility for their children’s education. We should always encourage more parental involvement, but when the parent refuses, than we as a society should do our best to step in and pick up the slack so the child doesn’t suffer from their parents inabilities.
“Nanny state.” It’s becoming a term so often and improperly used that it essentially loses all meaning.
Actually, I think in this context the phrase comes closest to being used properly, in that pre-K is somewhat like a “nanny” program run by the state.
No, you are right, and my reaction is a knee-jerk one. It comes from seeing it in print so often.
[…] Sean Braisted argues that Phil Valentine’s objections to Pre-K programs may stem from a overly rosy recollection of times gone by. Growing up in earlier times, it was perfectly acceptable for a poor/lower-middle class kid not to even contemplate going to college, but when I went to school, regardless of your socio-economic status, it was drilled in our heads from Kindergarten on that you had two choices in life; go to a four-year college or flip burgers at McDonald’s. Just like the propaganda in the war on drugs, the reality is far from the truth. The truth is a person’s personality and work ethic will be a better determinant of how far they can get in life. Granted, there is generally going to be a glass ceiling for non-college graduates in the white collar world, but people who apply themselves to a certain trade or craft can get extremely far in life without a $20,000+ piece of paper to validate their life. […]
Granted, there is generally going to be a glass ceiling for non-college graduates in the white collar world, but people who apply themselves to a certain trade or craft can get extremely far in life without a $20,000+ piece of paper to validate their life.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you…Me!
I don’t have a link, but I have heard that the Harvard Business School did a study and found that a college degree had the poorest ROI of just about any investment.
Dean,
I’d like to see that broken down between degrees that mean something: doctor/lawyer/engineer versus philosophy/sociology/art/underwater-basketweaving etc…
Jay,
I think that is sort of the point…how many kids are pushed into college with no direction, under the auspices that a degree, any degree, would be better than just a High School diploma?
To be sure, going to school to become a lawyer or doctor would be worth it because you couldn’t (legally) be either of those without the degree, but a bachelors in political science, probably not so much.
My political science degree continues to provide me with valuable insights.
Like how the world is full of college educated ditch diggers.
“To be sure, going to school to become a lawyer or doctor would be worth it because you couldn’t (legally) be either of those without the degree”
You don’t have to go to law school to be a lawyer. you just have to pass the bar exam.
You all should get jobs with the local schools. Seems like you share their limited view of education.
If by limited view you mean that I think an education should prepare a student to be a productive member of society, then I guess I do.
[…] problem of course is that the Brainstem is insightful and accurate much of the time. Therefore he can’t, and shouldn’t, be written off. But, keen insight isn’t […]
[…] Martin Kennedy takes issue with Sean Braisted’s endorsement of universal Pre-K and decries the rise of the nanny state in education: Does throwing kids into school at four years […]
Just to clarify a comment above. Didn’t want everyone pulling out law books to try to pass the bar. From the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners sight:
Basic Requirements for the Bar Examination:
Bachelor Degree from an accredited institution. Doctorate of Jurisprudence from an ABA approved law school. Intent to actively practice law in Tennessee.
Basic Requirements for Admission Without Examination (Comity):
Bachelor Degree from an accredited institution. Doctorate of Jurisprudence from an ABA approved law school. Must have taken and passed an equivalent bar examination. Must have practiced in the jurisdiction in which previously licensed for 5 (five) years immediately preceding the Tennessee application. Must have an intent to actively practice law in Tennessee.
You do have to have a law degree to take the exam.
Sean,
I don’t think that Valentine is operating on the premise that “education is the answer” like so many of the Liberal persuasion. In fact, Valentine doesn’t have a college degree.
My mother-in-law doesn’t have a college degree but is very productive and a good citizen, to boot.
Which reminds me of the news report I heard today about UT’s lowered attrition rate for freshmen–sorry, but I’m dubious about excessive efforts to keep tuition payers in school.
I hate to say it, but Pre-K seems to amount to taxpayer-funded childcare for most families.
I don’t think that Valentine is operating on the premise that “education is the answer” like so many of the Liberal persuasion. In fact, Valentine doesn’t have a college degree.
My mother-in-law doesn’t have a college degree but is very productive and a good citizen, to boot.
Hey, I don’t have a degree, and I usually do better than the regional mean.
Still, it’s like listening to Republicans: How seriously can you take someone complaining about n “not being the answer” from someone invested in an ideology that relies on that statement being true?
Works for education or government as values of n.
I now go back to my self-imposed exile from MCB, tenQverramuch…
.
“You do have to have a law degree to take the exam.”
I don’t think that is the case in all states. But, then again, I’m not a lawyer.
Jim,
There may be some states that don’t require it, but they’re rare; and even in those states, I think it usually requires years of “apprenticeship” or something.
JP,
Who’s invested in education not being the answer? Self-imposed exiles sure come in handy when you’re throwing ideological hand grenades, huh?
I got a degree in Communication almost 25 years ago. What have I done with it? Zilch. I sent out resumes, tapes, etc….got nowhere. Was actually told my degree was useless and that all non-technical degrees were useless. One plkace told me to just take my diploma and burn it and that there are more college grads flipping burgers than anyone else. I did rip it up and send pieces back to the school about 15 years ago after getting shitcanned from another telemarketing job.
Didn’t help me when I was also told that my not going to a big-name school was against me