Are state's children really suffering?

Are Idaho's children really suffering? Should I really be alarmed that more of our young children aren't enrolled in preschool? Is it urgent that we get our state government to spend more of our money on early childhood programs?

Something smells fishy, so I did a quick google on the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the group that annually bashes Idaho's treatment of its youth. I discovered the foundation is a very politically active group with far left positions on social issues. This helped explain to me why their solution to all our troubles seemed to be more government spending and less parental involvement.

Another quick Internet search revealed the following facts, ones the Annie E. Casey center might want to consider before advocating government-sponsored preschool for all our children.

Young children in any institutional group setting:

? Are 18 times more likely to become ill (including severe respiratory illness, acute ear infection and diarrhea).

? Are four times more likely to become hospitalized.

? Are three times more likely to develop serious behavior problems.

? Develop less secure attachments to mothers.

? Show more aggressive behavior

? Show slowed cognitive development.

(Statistics are from Brian C. Robertson, research fellow in the Center for Marriage and Family Studies; Jay Belsky, professor and director for the Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues; and Burton White, former director of Harvard Preschool Project).

And, as far as policy for the "at-risk child" is concerned, "Public Agenda," a non-partisan research group, found that both mothers and fathers preferred two-to-one options that would "make it easier and more affordable for one parent to stay at home" over those that would "improve the cost and quality of childcare." What most parents want from the government is to help them keep their children at home, not ship them off to the "experts."

CYNTHIA GLENN DILTS

Sandpoint