IN a June column, Phyllis Schlafly wrote about Obama’s efforts to introduce universal preschool, which is in this case another name for day care. This is one of the most cherished fantasies of feminists despite massive evidence that day care does not benefit children in the long run. It’s not enough that children are imprisoned from ages five to 18. Obama wants to get them earlier. Schlafly wrote:

Under the media’s radar, Obama has been aggressively promoting one of his fiscally extravagant projects announced in his 2013 State of the Union Address: “preschool available to every single child in America.” The plan for the federal government to take over the care of preschool children, a longtime goal of the feminists that used to be called universal child care, is now (probably to sound academic) called Pre-K.

The Obama Administration downplays the $75 billion initial cost of Pre-K by claiming it can be covered by raising the federal tax on cigarettes from $1.01 to $1.95. But cigarette taxes were hiked just a few years ago, and this massive sales tax falls harder on low-income Americans.

The game plan is to bait the states into accepting this expensive Pre-K plan by offering them bundles of new federal money, such as $308 million in grants dangled in front of Texas for just one year, requiring only a one-tenth match by the state. Of course, big blue-state California would receive the most funding, $334 million in the first year. [cont.]

— Comments —-

Karen I. writes:

The government already forces “special needs” children, including many late-talking boys, into public school pre-k. They start as young as three years old.

I would like to share our story so other parents of “special needs” children are aware that states use such conditions as a way into homes and as a way to dictate a child’s entry into public school pre-k.

My son was two when he was first diagnosed with a severe speech and language delay, both receptive and expressive. There was some question of PDD-NOS, as the doctors said my son was too social to be considered truly autistic. I read Thomas Sowell’s excellent book on late talking children around that time, and decided it would not be in my son’s best interest to seek a diagnosis. The professionals could not seem to agree on a diagnosis anyway, and I got the feeling that as long as I did what I could to avoid an autism diagnosis, my son would not get an autism diagnosis. I was right. One autism doctor, who charged $1,000 per hour, was ready to diagnose my son over the phone when I called to inquire about his services. I avoided that one and saved a lot of money. I also refused to let a pediatrician run genetic tests for things like Fragile X when that was brought up. The attempt to avoid a label was my decision for my reasons. Everyone has their own opinion when it comes to things like this, and this is not intended as commentary on choices other parents make.

Despite the lack of diagnosis, something was wrong, and all the professionals agreed that my son required extensive early intervention in the form of speech therapy and occupational therapy. I was told from the start that in my state, such services are administered through a government program for the vast majority of families. Because of the program, insurance did not cover the services and automatically referred families to the program instead. Very few families can pay for the services out of pocket, and those who try sometimes lose every asset in doing so, only to find they have to turn to the state program after that.

We had not choice but to go ahead with the in-home, state-run services, and had professionals in our home up to three times a week. It was very disruptive in many ways. I never felt I could let my guard down when the therapists were around. It was stressful but my son did make progress in the program.

When he turned three, I was informed that my son would be transferring to the special ed. pre-k in the local school district. I was asked to sign some forms to facilitate the transfer of his records to the school. Suddenly, I decided I’d had enough, and refused to sign the forms. Apparently, this was never done, and the professionals were stunned. I told them I wanted a year off for my son, so he could have a normal life for awhile. I thought he deserved that much.

After I refused to sign the forms, and consent to the transfer, a school official called me. He identified himself as the head of the special education department. He asked what the problem was and told me what the school had to offer. He was trying to change my mind, but he could not. When it became clear I was not going to budge, the threat came out. The school official told me the school district could take us to court and compel us to send my son to the special ed. pre-k! I was stunned, but I tried not to let on and calmly asked if he intended to do that. After a pause, he said he would not.

My son did enter the pre-k the following year. Most of the other children there who were not “peer models” (normal children attending for free as models for the special needs kids), were late-talking boys. By then, I had learned to be very careful what I said and who I said it to regarding my son. Other parents of special needs children who do not want their children automatically enrolled in pre-k following early intervention should look carefully at their state’s policies to learn what their rights are. They should also seek the assistance of a parent advocacy center if problems arise.

In the end, my son overcame or just outgrew his difficulties and is now an honors student enrolled in honors classes. The year off from pre-k and the lack of a diagnostic label did him no harm at all.

Adam writes:

Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

Please follow and like us: