Conservative biases should not deny information to parents.
Star Tribune Editorial
It's hard to fault the solid research and creative thinking that produced the early childhood education improvement proposal that comes to the Legislature this year from the business-backed Minnesota Early Learning Foundation (MELF; see box at right for details).
For the arch-conservative faction within the GOP, that left bad science, mistrust of government and disapproval of the 76 percent of Minnesota mothers with small children who work outside the home on which to base their opposition to MELF's ideas.
It's disheartening that such a shaky intellectual foundation was sufficient last week to knock MELF's quality rating recommendations out of an E-12 funding bill on the House floor.
In the Senate, only a one-sentence scrap of the MELF proposal found its way into the education funding bill, and it took an amendment on the floor by Edina Republican Sen. Geoff Michel to get it there.
That scrap is enough to keep MELF's quality rating proposal alive for conference committee consideration.
But how alive, given the Republican majorities' disturbing willingness to kowtow to social conservatives' ill-informed biases, remains to be seen.
This isn't how Duane Benson, MELF's executive director, expected this session would go. A former Minnesota Business Partnership executive and former Senate Republican majority leader, Benson thought the MELF proposals were tailored to please the GOP caucuses.
MELF's plan is what its House sponsor, Rep. Jenifer Loon, R-Eden Prairie, called "a free-market solution" to closing the achievement gap. It involves choices for both parents and early ed providers.
No provider would be compelled to undergo a quality rating, and no parent would be forced to enroll a child with a highly rated provider. A private board would help parents find and use the rating system.
However, under MELF's plan, state-funded scholarships for low-income families would only be available for use in child care programs with a highly rated early education component.
That, too, should have GOP appeal, Benson reasoned. It was about spending taxpayer money prudently, on programs of proven worth, and inviting private-sector donors to help pay for them.
One more feature of MELF's plan aimed for GOP support. It did not increase total government spending. The quality rating plan was designed to redirect existing education spending, not to raise total costs.
MELF itself ought to look good to budget-minded legislators of both parties. Founded in 2007 with business and civic-leader backing, it rejected the state's offer of $1 million in startup money in order to be free of state control.
Using privately raised funds, it designed and operated pilot projects that gauged how best to assess program quality and deliver assistance to the children most at risk of arriving at kindergarten already behind.
MELF's results are encouraging. In a St. Paul pilot, more children enrolled in high-quality programs. Children's test scores improved.
So did the number of high-quality child care programs in the test area, as providers competed to achieve top ratings. All signs indicate that MELF has hit on a good formula for targeting meaningful assistance to the children and families who need it most.
MELF is designed to go out of business later this year, after its policy design work is done. It has done that work so well that it ought to be hailed as a model for other issues and other places.
Legislators should know this: If they want the private sector's problem-solving assistance in the future, on this or any other issue, they should not allow MELF's good work to be cast aside.
© 2011 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
