Beware of reports that government funded early childhood programs are THE answer to education and youth problems.

There are perpetual calls for more money for early childhood programs. This year will be no different. However, the looming $4.8 billion budget deficit makes it highly likely they'll get big dollars and in fact will face cuts.

Of course there will be claims that we're putting children at risk and the only way to prevent it is more money for more government programs.

The only problem is this approach is the myopic view that government has the answer for all social ills. If we just spent more money, we'd be able to solve the problems.

Of course, that's what President Johnson said in the 1960s with his War on Poverty and Great Society initiatives. The result forty years later? Trillions of dollars spent and poverty rates aren't much better while the family is in much worse shape -- about one third of children born out of wedlock which usually means without a dad in their lives.

The latest effort to promote early childhood programs is a research study by the Wilder Research study reported on in a Star Tribune story "Kids not ready for kindergarten costs schools $113 million a year." The story assumes that early childhood programs are the answer to youth education problems.

The bias of the story is found in the sub-headline which reads, "A Wilder Research study adds to the argument for more early childhood education." But when you read the story and the summary of the research there's no basis for that assertion. The study says that student drop outs, teacher absentees and turnover, special education needs, teaching English and delinquency problems cost over $100 million a year.

Why is early childhood the answer? Based on a vague assertion from some unnamed research studies saying early childhood programs save money.

In fact, the studies I've seen suggest these early childhood programs don't have lasting effects and can even be harmful. But let's not let the facts get in the way of what we want to do.

Of course, the answer, according to the story, for the $113 million costs is a statewide, two year early childhood program costing $377 million a year for at risk 3 year olds. So let's spend three times the amount addressing a problem with a program which actually doesn't have long lasting benefits and can be harmful to kids.

According to the story writer, "The moral of the story?" is having folks other than schools foot some of the bill. Why have anybody foot the bill if the programs don't deliver and cost three times the problem? Where is logic in this?

Of course guess what the per year cost of the quality two year program for at risk kids is? $13,00 annually. What you have here is a proposal to pay people to babysit and supervise somebody else's children on a part-time basis.

The real culprit and source of the education problem costs is the breakdown of the family and the fraying of the moral fabric in the lives of kids.

What should the state do? First, realize the answer doesn't ultimately reside in government. Government needs to realize it should do no harm and attempts to take over the responsibility for raising children is not the answer. Second, an easy first step is reforming our no fault divorce system which encourages marriage break-up. (This is an issue of justice which the government has a responsibility to promote.) Third, place marriage strengthening as the center piece of all existing government social initiatives. Fourth, empower parents to take responsibility for educating children via school choice initiatives. Fifth, government officials should use their moral bully pulpits to encourage churches and private groups need to pick up the stack in promoting marriage and intact families.

I think these initiatives will have better results and get to the heart of the matter.

Cohabitation as "Trial Divorce"

One of those dangerous, damaging social phenomena which rarely gets much press or public attention, yet is enormously detrimental to society is cohabitation. Many view it as a trial marriage. A way to see if the relationship will work out. But Mike McManus, marriage expert and author of Living Together: Myths, Risks & Answers, refers to it as "Trial Divorce" because 85% of the time they don't last.

In an interview McManus said:

Couples who live together are gambling and losing in 85 percent of the cases. Many believe the myth that they are in a “trial marriage.” Actually it is more like a “trial divorce,” in which more than eight out of ten couples will break up either before the wedding or afterwards in divorce. First, about 45 percent of those who begin cohabiting, do not marry. Those who undergo “premarital divorce” often discover it is as painful as the real thing. Another 5-10 percent continue living together and do not marry. These two trends are the major reason the marriage rate has plunged 50 percent since 1970. Couples who cohabit are likely to find that it is a paltry substitute for the real thing, marriage. Of the 45 percent or so who do marry after living together, they are 50 percent more likely to divorce than those who remained separate before the wedding. So instead of 22 of the 45 couples divorcing (the 50 percent divorce rate) about 33 will divorce. That leaves just 12 couples who have begun their relationship with cohabitation who end up with a marriage lasting 10 years.

This points out that cohabitation does just the opposite of encouraging folks to stay together. It increases the likelihood that they won't stay married once they do get married.

McManus calls marriage disintegration the "central domestic problem of our time... not the recession." Of course children suffers as does society. McManus points out that

"Children of cohabiting parents are perhaps ten times more likely to be sexually abused by a stepparent than by a parent. They are three times as likely to be expelled from school or to get pregnant as teenagers than children from an intact home with married parents. And they are five times more apt to live in poverty, and 22 times more likely to incarcerated."

While so much time and attention is focused on the symptoms of the problem, e.g. poverty, welfare, crime, juvenile delinquency, STDs, the major source of the problem is hardly even looked at -- breakdown of marriages and/or the failure to raise children in a marriage relationship.

Of course, the answer doesn't primarily lie with government, yet there are things government can and should do to improve the situation. For instance, move away from the no fault, unilateral divorce regime and establish joint custody/mutual parenting if couples do decide to get divorced.

Absolutely critical is for churches to honor the marriage commitment by giving moral clarity to the covenant of marriage both in its teaching and preaching and how they prepare people for marriage.

Cohabitation coupled with a 38% of out wedlock birth rate will only deepen the social crisis facing our nation. If we as a society don't get a handle on this we will only see greater and more serious social deterioration.