Voluntary Preschool bill killed

In today's Argus Leader, Terry Woster has an article on how the House of Representatives (the conservative chamber this session) killed the measure on voluntary pre-school programs:
The House Education Committee voted 8-7 to kill the bill. While supporters called it a simple step toward voluntary preschool standards, opponents said they glimpsed a future of mandatory, school-based programs.


Supporters described the bill as a first step toward providing high-quality early childhood education in a state that has a large percentage of mothers of young children in the work force. They also said private preschool programs would have the option of meeting the accreditation standards, and parents would have the option of sending their children to preschool.


Opponents said the standards could drive some private preschool programs out of business by raising the cost to meet guidelines and hire certified teachers. They also said they were concerned that a voluntary program now would become mandatory in the future.


Rep. Tom Hackl, R-Hoven, said voluntary might be a fluid thing. Veteran legislators remember when kindergarten was always going to be voluntary, he said.

The Legislature last year passed a bill making kindergarten mandatory in 2010.
Read it all here at the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.


lexrex said…
hackl's dead right. what's voluntary today will be compulsory tomorrow.

but i would say that this program is hardly voluntary, that is unless it's completely funded by private dollars.

once the gov't starts taking tax dollars to pay for something, it ceases to really be "voluntary." my child may not be compelled to attend, but i am compelled to pay for it.

the school district: "rest easy, mr. regier. you don't have to put your 4-year-old in our state-approved pre-school if you don't want. oh, by the way, make that check out to 'The State of South Dakota.'"
Anonymous said…
I know the response I will get to this comment, but here it is anyway.

If the government came into the hospital and said "We are going to take your baby and raise it for you" there would be an outraged uproar from just about everyone.

But, the government, at an ever earlier age, is saying, "Here, let us take care of your child for you, because we can do it better and you can earn more money to have more things and pay more taxes". And we gladly hand over our babies thinking how wonderful the government is.

We are just like the frog in the pot of water being turned up to boil.

What the children need is more time with their parents, espcially mothers, and the government should be doing more to make that possible, not the other way around.

nonnie said…
I'm glad that this bill went to the great beyond. If people want kids, then take responsibility for raising them for awhile at least. If you don't want to, then don't have kids.

And my biggest argument against this - the state can't give enough money to adequately fund K-12. Just where in the ___ were they thinking the all of a sudden have extra funds around for preschool? No one has answered that question. Gov Rounds, are you reading this? Can you tell me where the money would come from for this when you won't give enough to K-12?
Anonymous said…
Strange though it may seem, for he first time in my memory, I agree with Nonnie on something.

She's right! If they can't fund K-12 education, how in the name of all that is holy can they fund Pre-K?

I do belive I'm going to sit down now and take a rest.
Anonymous said…
Sibby 1, Kids 0.
mom said…
Whenever Government funding appears--so do government "standards."

While standards in themselves may not be a bad thing--standards in the hands of the SDEA and our liberal leaning Dept. of Education IS a bad thing.

Most private preschools are CHURCH related--and when the government steps in, the churches are --once again--told what they can and cannot say and offer by way of curriculum and care. This is one more way to insure that our students do NOT think for themselves but only parrot the SDEA’s philosophies. This is one more way to shut out anyone who has not been through the educations classes that parrot the SDEA’s philosophies. And YES (Dave Knutson) one more way to say that our “trained professionals” are better at parenting than our parents are. THIS is truly not good for our state.

Thank you House Education Committeee!

(When I look at some of the marriages and teens of those trained professionals who attempted to tell me that they knew what they were doing--- and I didn’t—-- oh my —there are some not-so-good track records there!)
Anonymous said…
Sibby hates children.
Anonymous said…
11:48 Thanks.

Sibby is one of the smartest guys in SD. He has files of proof on everything he writes about. You sore loosers can't figure out how a guy with a pony tail kicks your butt. Keep up the good work Sibby.

Tom Hackl you keep up the good work too.
Tom said…

How is he smart? I've checked out his blog and it seems like he copies and pastes all his "thoughts" from Rush Limbaugh (a drug addicted sociopath) and other social conservative sources. He lets them do his thinking for him.
Anonymous said…
How does Sibby figure into this thread??

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long