RE: Question 1: Pre-school support

I appreciate the efforts of the panelists to defuse my concerns about the state's encroachment on parental rights. I find them (and the MP, to a degree) well meaning, but somewhat naive. A lawyer once explained to me that a contract is the most unimportant thing if both parties have identical interests - they will work it out, whatever is written on paper. But if their interests diverge -- well, then the contract IS the most important thing. So we should not assume the most benign iterpretation, even if I am willing to assume good intentions of the authors.

For example, Charles Ratcliff writes:
"What the draft attempts to say is that many children enter the formal public education system at a disadvantage and that disadvantage is exacerbated over time through no fault of the the child." Right. So whose "fault" is it, if not the parents? Therefore, who should step in, if not the state?

Or, down the line:

The MP seeks to provide convenient ways for such parents to find help in making decisions in the best interest of their child...". Right. The "child", not the "family". We know who is the judge of the best interest of the family - but who it will be for the child, if not the state?

Similarly, Karen Hill-Scott writes:
"none of these services to families proposed are mandatory". I can believe the sentiment *now*. But I will be much less perturbed if the MP stated, clearly and unequivocally, what are the rights of the families that are *guranteed not to be infringed*. Not left to current or future interpretations.

I repeat - if I understand the panelists correctly, nothing prohibits the implementation of the MP as voluntary "vouchers"; be it for healthcare, be it for immunization, be it for pre-schools. We already have some of it - it is called "child credit" in the tax code. I whole-heartedly support that, and I don't mind to enlarge it. But do not build a state system for them! Once you do, it will be unionized and "one size fits all". And the union will definitely push for mandatory participation - after all, it increases the membership and its clout.

For example, Karen mentioned that "most middle and high-income children ... are enrolled in some sort of pre-school" as a "good thing". But those pre-school caretakers did not have to go through state certification, ed-school, or dozen other barriers that the state will surely put in place. Why not provide the same for the poor that supposedly serves so well the rich? Not some state-nanny, but a nanny of parent's choice?!

As I have said, I am scared. Very scared.