A universal early childhood education system.

Historically, the field of early childhood education (ECE) in the United States has struggled, and continues to struggle, for political positioning. While studies continue to demonstrate ECE's effectiveness in preparing students for success in later life (e.g., Schweinhart et al., 2005), politicians and the public appear unwilling to implement or advocate for a universal early childhood education system (Washington, 2004). I believe that this lack of political will to broaden ECE exists because the field continues to position itself to policymakers as an intervention or investment. Using George Lakoff's (2002, 2004) cognitive theory as a foundation, I argue that we, as early childhood educators, must consider strategies to reframe our positioning of ECE so that we can move our field from the margins to the heart of discussions over education policy.

Early Childhood Education As an Investment

Head Start, whose beginnings in the 1960s coincided with President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, exemplifies why policymakers have primarily constructed ECE as a social intervention program. Studies that questioned the effectiveness of these government-funded ECE programs, such as Westinghouse Learning Corp.'s (1969) evaluation of Head Start, caused researchers to reposition ECE as something more than just an intervention--it was an investment (e.g., Schweinhart & Weikart, 1980). This "return on investment" argument underlies the current push for ECE reform (e.g., Karoly et al., 1998; Lynch, 2004). These studies argue that for every dollar invested in particular types of early childhood programs, the government saves money by not having to spend additional funds on future social and educational services for the children who benefited from the program. This argument shifts the rationale for funding ECE programs slightly. Rather than breaking the cycle of poverty for others, funding programs will save you, the taxpayer, money.

Yet, positioning the field as either an intervention or an investment for particular populations of citizens provides policymakers with numerous opportunities to ignore the call for an increased investment in a more universal system of child care. For instance, the National Institute for Early Education Research's annual report, The State of Preschool, noted that 16 states increased pre-kindergarten spending, while 21 states decreased spending and 12 states do not fund pre-kindergarten programs at all (Barnett, Hustedt, Robin, & Schulman, 2004). Furthermore, Shulman and Blank (2004) found that federal funding for child care assistance through the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) has stagnated, and that assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) block grants has declined from its peak in 2000.

My concern is not that these arguments for high-quality ECE programs are weak or that they fail to produce enough empirical evidence to demonstrate their effectiveness. Rather, the "return on investment" argument positions the field as a choice, one that is dependent upon an elected official's framing of the role of government and the responsibilities of the family. Ultimately, I believe that presenting the field as merely a choice will continue to marginalize ECE within the political landscape of the United States.

Framing the Politics of Early Childhood Education

George Lakoff is a cognitive psychologist who is interested in how individuals think about politics. He investigates how individuals view their environment and makes the case that we see the world through particular frames/frameworks. These frames are mental structures that exist in our unconscious, and they shape the way we see the world (Lakoff, 2004). Lakoff claims that we use conceptual metaphors to make sense of our world and to help us understand our experiences. Ultimately, Lakoff's theory of framing focuses on how people try to create political understanding of the world around them.

Lakoff begins his analysis by examining how we frame the world morally. He contends that much of our moral reasoning is rooted in metaphors, and declares that society conceptualizes morality through metaphors of moral accounting (Lakoff, 2002). We strive to achieve a moral balance in our lives. For instance, we use the moral scheme of reciprocation to frame many of our interactions with others, as when we say, "If you do me this favor, I will owe you one" (Lakoff, 2002).

Lakoff then links this structure of moral reasoning to our political reasoning. He argues that we base our political framing of the world on our moral construction of the family--specifically, he says, the "Nation-as-Family" metaphor guides our political reasoning. Lakoff asserts that the current political landscape of the United States consists of two dominant political frameworks, conservative and liberal. Within this Nation-as-Family metaphor, conservatives use a Strict Father morality to frame their politics and liberals use a Nurturant Parent model.

Before going any further with this argument, I must make two points. First, I recognize that members of ACEI affiliate themselves with numerous political organizations and are not aligned, monolithically, with one political party or philosophy. In fact, my purpose is not to argue for one particular political party over another. Second, Lakoff bases his understanding of political reasoning in a framework that contrasts a patriarchal understanding of society (the Strict Father) to a more feminized interpretation of society (the Nurturant Parent). By using Lakoff's theory, I am not trying to construct an argument that some might see as demeaning to women so that members of this organization will support one political party over another. Rather, I want to illuminate how particular political ideologies frame ECE so that the field can promote its goals in a manner that reframes the debates and moves ECE from the margin to the center of education policy.

Returning to Lakoff's work, he contends that words derive their meaning from the conceptual system in which they are spoken (Lakoff, 2002). For instance, within this Nation-as-Family metaphor, Lakoff contends that an individual who adheres to the Strict Father morality frames the world from a patriarchal perspective, whereby the father is in charge and is responsible for supporting and protecting his family. His wife's responsibilities include supporting him while running the home and raising the children. Lakoff (2002) states that within this model, the "children must respect and obey their parents; by doing so they build character, that is, self-discipline and self-reliance.... Self-discipline, self-reliance, and the respect for the legitimate authority are the crucial things that children must learn" (p. 33).

Conversely, Lakoff asserts that the Nuturant Parent morality promotes a family structure that adheres to the principles of love and nurturance rather than strict authority. Parents do not rule over their children, but rather, they create a household environment in which obedience emerges from love and respect. Moreover, the responsibility for raising the child lies not only in the family but also within the community at-large. The child is taught to take on responsibility out of love and respect for the parent and for the community, rather than out of fear of punishment (Lakoff, 2002).

These different moral structures demonstrate how it is that when conservative and liberal politicians talk about government regulation and policy, they are talking about two different things. For example, conservatives see government regulations as a form of interference, which must be abolished, while liberals frame them as a form of protection, which must be supported and maintained (Lakoff, 2002).

It is important to point out that these models are mental models; thus, they are necessarily different from real-world cases (Lakoff, 2004). Many people use both models, but enact them in different parts of their lives.

Nevertheless, Lakoff's cognitively based theory demonstrates how individuals make choices based on their framing of the world, rather than on facts. Lakoff (2004) states that "when the facts don't fit the frames, the frames are kept and the facts ignored" (p. 73). Moreover, Lakoff contends that people do not necessarily make political choices based on their self-interest. Rather, they make choices based on the moral structure or political framework with which they identify. For example, an individual might read an article about a study that demonstrates how providing access to a high-quality ECE program is a wise investment, and agree with its findings. Yet, this same individual may make a political or personal choice that ignores such findings, because she does not believe that it is morally right for the government to provide public assistance.

Since early childhood stakeholders frame ECE as a tool for either intervention or investment to policymakers, they must justify their programs as worthy recipients (i.e., they improve academic readiness) of public funds. This positioning of the field as a good investment goes against the core beliefs of Lakoff's Strict Father moral framework, which currently dominates the political landscape of the United States. This conservative system of moral reasoning defines social programs as immoral because they "violate the very thing that ... makes morality possible: rewards for discipline and punishment for lack of it" (Lakoff, 2002, p. 183). Lakoff makes it clear that the issue over funding universal access to ECE is not about money (not when, for example, conservative policymakers continually support an increase in spending for such programs as the military or prisons). This issue is an issue of morality--if the government takes care of its citizens, then what will motivate them to be moral individuals?

The Lack of Return From the Investment Argument

As you can see, the Strict Father morality framework places ECE in a curious position. Not only does the current political push to frame ECE as a good investment violate the moral structure of this framework, it creates a political line of reasoning that limits the ability of the field of ECE to expand beyond anything more than an investment. Within the current framework of policy, any hope to provide access to all those who desire it cannot be fulfilled.

Moreover, I am concerned that arguing ECE is a wise investment necessitates the idea of universal standards that all children must strive to achieve--necessitating the "ready child" who possesses specific skills to enter school (see Burke & Burke, 2005, for an alternative understanding of the ready child).

Defining an intervention by whether or not it prevents failure is tricky when the field frames (and in many ways depends upon) populations of people who possess particular cultural and economic markers that require change--it means that the field cannot survive without finding fault in others. Thus, the "ready child" necessitates the "at-risk" child, which puts the onus of success and failure on the child and her family while ignoring the responsibility of society and the inherent bias it perpetuates towards particular populations of children (e.g., see Swadener & Lubeck, 1995).

To be clear, I am not stating that researchers should abandon a line of research or advocacy that demonstrates the importance in providing access to high-quality early childhood programs. Rather, I am arguing that members of the ECE community need to reframe these arguments and use a different set of terms.

Reframing the Politics of Early Childhood Education

To reframe the argument, the early childhood community needs to state why ECE is a necessary part of our society. Reframing is more than just using new words or a new language; it is imposing new ideas. Lakoff (2004) argues that words do evoke frames, but the ideas have to be in place before the words can make sense. Therefore, in developing a counterargument or rebuttal, stakeholders in ECE must impose a new frame.

I believe that the early childhood community must argue that all families and children within the United States have a basic right to high-quality ECE. Moreover, it is the nation's responsibility to fulfill this right. An educated populace is the foundation for a strong and just society. Failure to uphold this responsibility and provide this right is a failure in the ability of a democratic nation to lead and govern.

My argument is not new (e.g., Graham, 2003) and reflects a common belief that has persisted throughout the history of ECE. Furthermore, I realize that part of the underlying logic behind the investment argument is to achieve the goal of providing access to ECE programs to all those who desire it. However, the investment argument continues to push for such access through the language and logic of a political and moral system that will not allow universal access to be achieved--reframing the argument means that the field has to move beyond the notions of intervention and investment.

One possible avenue to pursue in achieving this right is to examine the possibility of expanding the constitutional responsibility of each of the 50 states so that they are required to provide a free public education to all the children who live in that state from birth through age 18. By using similar legislation that now exists in most states for requiring access to kindergarten programs, states could require that school districts provide early childhood programs for all who desire it, rather than making early childhood programs compulsory. Pushing such an agenda (which many in the pre-K movement are doing) opens up new discussions over funding, taxes, program priorities, infrastructure issues, etc., which goes beyond the scope of my discussion.

Nevertheless, arguing that ECE is a constitutional right for all children shifts the debate from economics to rights. Policymakers and the community at-large can no longer push the issue of access to the side or just revisit ECE when a policymaker is up for re-election.

I recognize that this argument provides a simple solution to a complex problem--universal access would change the field of ECE dramatically (see Helburn, 2003, for a discussion on what a federally funded system of child care for 3- to 5-year-olds might cost and how it might be organized). Yet, in pitching such a proposal I am trying to avoid using the rhetoric of the Strict Father morality. Making statements using the investment argument or the language of business severely limits the possibility of access for all and reiterates the point that ECE is a policy issue for a select portion of the population--those who need an intervention to succeed. Framing ECE as a responsibility and a right no longer necessitates the need for the "at-risk" child or the "unready" child.

Thinking Strategically and Politically

To make the case that I have solved the struggles of this field by framing ECE as a right and responsibility of the United States is preposterous. Rather, my goal through this article is to demonstrate how the current emphasis on viewing ECE as an investment keeps ECE at the margins of U.S. political debates as well as in other discussions around the world. By pursuing a new framing of ECE, I hope that the field can begin to "tip" (Gladwell, 2000) policymakers' and constituents' framing of the field towards the idea that universal access to ECE is central to U.S. education policy.

References

Barnett, W. S., Hustedt, J. T., Robin, K. B., & Schulman, K. L. (2004). The state of preschool: 2004 state preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. Retrieved November, 30, 2004, from nieer.org/yearbook/pdf/ yearbook.pdf.

Burke, C. J. F., & Burke, W. M. (2005). Student-ready schools. Childhood Education, 81, 281-285.

Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston: Little, Brown.

Graham, M. (2003). Funding the ingredients of quality programs. Young Children, 58, 11.

Helburn, S.W. (2003). Thinking big: The federal role in building a system of child care and early education. Young Children, 58, 66-71.

Karoly, L. A., Greenwood, P. W., Everingham, S. S., HoubG J., Kilburn, M. R., Rydell, C. P., Sanders, M., & Chiesa, J. (1998). Investing in our children: What we know and don't know about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Lynch, R. G. (2004). Exceptional returns: Economic, fiscal, and social benefits of investment in early childhood development. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40. (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 14). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1980). Young children grow up: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 15. Monographs of the High/Scope educational research foundation, 7. Ypsilanti, MI: High Scope Education Research Foundation.

Shulman, K., & Blank, H. (2004). Child care assistance policies 2001-2004: Families struggling to move forward, states going backward. Washington, DC: National Women's Law Center. Retrieved November 19, 2004, from www.nwlc.org/pdf/childcaresubsidyfinalreport.pdf.

Swadener, B. B., & Lubeck, S. (1995). Children and families "at promise": Deconstructing the discourse of risk. New York: SUNY Press.

Washington, V. (2004). Where do we go from here? How to build a movement on behalf of young children. Retrieved November, 19, 2004, from www. prospect.org.

Westinghouse Learning Corporation. (1969). The impact of Head Start: An evaluation of the effects of Head Start on children's cognition and affective development. Washington, DC: Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information. ED036321

Christopher P. Brown is Assistant Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, University of Texas at Austin.