With revenues that continue to decline – 2010 fiscal year-to-date net general revenue collections have declined 12.5 percent compared to FY 2009, from $4.44 billion to $3.88 billion – the State of Missouri will be reeling from budget cuts for the foreseeable future. Further, with wrongheaded tax code initiatives underway and promoted by heavily funded individuals and institutions who invest in electing state legislators, Missouri state government – already throttled by the Hancock Amendment – may be entering a period of perpetual decline in terms of its ability to fund community programs.
We understand the question for Gov. Nixon and the Legislature is not if they will cut funding for programs, but rather which programs and how much. In such a desperate funding climate, progressives and conservatives should be able to agree that the very last set of programs on the chopping block should be those dedicated to early childhood education. Progressives – a group that, alas, does not include this Democratic governor – should need no convincing of this. But even conservatives should embrace public spending on early childhood education for the simple reasons that it yields the greatest bang for the buck and ultimately contributes to economic development in terms of a better prepared workforce,
James Heckman, a distinguished conservative economist at the University of Chicago, presented this case in his study “The Economic Case for Investing in Disadvantaged Young Children,” delivered recently at the Missouri Leaders Summit on Early Childhood Investment. “Early interventions promote schooling, reduce crime, foster workforce productivity and reduce teenage pregnancy,” Heckman writes. “These interventions are estimated to have high benefit-cost ratios and rates of return.”
Hackman notes home visits as an example of a valuable early childhood intervention program, because they can create permanent and positive change in the home environment by directly affecting the lives of the parents, at a relatively low cost. This is, precisely, the domain of Parents As Teachers, a heavily-researched national model for early childhood education based here in St. Louis. Though Nixon voiced support for early childhood education in general and Parents As Teachers in particular in the 2009 State of the State address, Parents As Teachers was cut 10 percent in State funding last year. This year, Nixon has proposed cutting State funding to PAT services in public school districts by another 14 percent. If Nixon’s proposal is executed, these valuable and cost-efficient programs would lose $4.1 million in State funding. Yesterday Nixon announced an additional $2 million would be cut effective this fiscal year.
Cheryle Dyle-Palmer, the African-American chief operating officer for Parents As Teachers, told us, “It is at-risk families that will feel these cuts the most.” But we agree with her that even cold-blooded economic reasoning should place a priority on these programs. Dyle-Palmer said, “These cuts will have a domino effect and touch every institution in the state that deals with the family.” Furthermore, if Missouri children do not receive critical early intervention, of the sort delivered by PAT, their academic performance will suffer all the way down the line. With the Obama administration making federal funding for State education departments an increasingly competitive process, a State funding cut to Parents As Teachers will very likely result in future lost federal revenue.
Now is the time to pressure your state legislator and Gov. Nixon. They must be told, in no uncertain terms, that early childhood education in general and Parents For Teachers in particular deserve our tax dollars. These proposed cuts are short-sighted and self-destructive must not be enacted.