Let’s Talk About Kids

Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate featured yet another extended exchange between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama about the merits of their respective health care plans. Health care’s gotten a lot of attention in this campaign, with good reason–it’s one of the biggest economic challenges facing our country, and both candidates have big, aggressive plans on it.

Yet we rarely hear much these days about another issue on which the candidates both have big, aggressive–but contrasting–plans: Early Education. Sure, the candidates toss early education into their answers to questions on other issues, and it’s part of the list of policy areas where they say they’ll make change. But, in all the 24 debates Democratic candidates have had so far this primary season, there hasn’t been a single question specifically about early childhood education.

That’s partly because there haven’t been that many questions on education at all. But it’s also because–with the exception of the black-brown and Univision debates–moderators tend to focus education questions on specific hot-button issues–particularly performance based teacher pay–they think force candidates to pick sides between reformers and teachers unions. This approach both overstates and understates the differences between the candidates on a range of important education issues. [slideshow]

Early education is a prime example here. Both Clinton and Obama are making big proposals that would dramatically increase the federal role and spending in this area–surely that’s worth talking about? Talking about the candidates’ early education plans could also shed light on the ongoing debate about their health care plans. The centerpiece of Sen. Clinton’s early education agenda is a proposal to make high-quality pre-k universal. While Sen. Obama would also invest significant resources in early education, he would take a more hands-off approach in how states use those funds, and is not promising to get to universal pre-k. That should sound familiar to health policy wonks, who’ve been debating the merits of Sen. Clinton’s proposal that would make health care coverage universal, compared to Obama’s proposal that wouldn’t.

Obama’s further drawn a distinction between himself and Clinton by focusing on comprehensive “zero to five” programs, rather than universal pre-k, and emphasizing the importance of the first three years of chidlren’s development. There are reasonable arguments for both approachers, and exploring this distinction further could be illuminating–not just about the candidates’ early education policies, but also in terms of how they approach social policy issues more generally.

Whether or not we see another debate between Sens. Clinton and Obama depends on what happens this coming Tuesday. But if there is another debate, moderators should take the opportunity to ask the candidates about their positions on early education. We’ve taken the liberty of offering them some suggestions:

• Sen. Clinton: Your proposal focuses on Universal Pre-k. But Senator Obama has argued that pre-k is too late to invest, because so much brain development happens in the first three years of life. Why have you chosen to focus your investment on pre-k rather than younger children? And how will your policies support healthy development of infants and toddlers?
• Sen. Obama: Your proposal would provide funding states could use to expand pre-k programs–but does not set any quality standards for those programs. Do you believe that federal funds for pre-k should be accompanied by quality standards, and what do you beleive are the characteristics of a high-quality pre-k program?
• You have both proposed significant investments in early childhood education. How do these investments relate to the reforms you’ve proposed for the K-12 public education system, and what policies will you support in the K-12 system to ensure that the benefits of high-quality early education don’t fade out as students progress through their schooling?
• You have both proposed large investments in early education. If fiscal and political restraints require you to settle for smaller investments, what early childhood investments would you prioritize with limited funds?

In the longer term, we’d like to see future series of debates–either in the general election or future primaries for both parties–include at least one debate specifically focused on children and our nation’s future–not just education issues, but also health, poverty, how economic policies will effect the economy our children inherit, and how our foreign policies affect children around the globe. This season we’ve seen debates focused on Spanish-speaking and Latino voters, gay voters, Senior Citizens, and youth–but we haven’t seen much in the way of serious conversation about how candidates would support the children who truly are our nation’s future. It’s time for that.