Letter to the GCEL, June 14, 1998

To: Members of the Governor's Commission on Early Learning

Date: June 14, 1999

Subj: Work of the GCEL

I have watched, with interest, the activities of the GCEL over the past year, as an outreach and extension of the Whitehouse Conference on Early Childhood Learning and Development held in April 1997 and of the National Governor's Association winter meeting in February 1997, where the governors met with Mr Rob Reiner of the I Am Your Child campaign (who met with the GCEL in August 1998), and Dr Bruce Perry of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (who was to meet with legislators later this month).

The establishment of the GCEL came as no surprise, as an outreach of these events. I have to question, however, the efficacy of this commission. I was present at the November 10, 1998, public forum (read that "public focus group") meeting in Spokane. In speaking of the commission, I never once heard any member of the commission disclose to the public present the commission's connections to Goals 2000, the federal government, the Clinton Administration, the I Am Your Child campaign or the part it is playing in the ongoing establishment of a "cradle to grave" government system of control over the people of this state. The audience was led to believe that the work of the commission was "local in flavor" and innocuous. Rather disingenuous to say the least, also misleading which speaks directly to the true purpose of the commission. I watched as the consensus building process was used at the meeting to ensure the outcomes — outcomes that were intended to support, justify, augment, and precipitate the continued work of the commission. Also rather disingenuous, considering the GCEL statement that the forums were to gather "parent input." Parent input was the fartherest thing from the commission's mind as also became obvious in the commissions response to the gentlemen who admonished the GCEL and audience present for its materialistic approach to the subject. It was very obvious that said input was not welcome.

It becomes very obvious, in researching not only the government system noted above, but also the work of the GCEL, that the state believes it has the right, in the interests of producing a "workforce", to intercede in the family in the interests of producing the perfect "worker." How repugnant to the "reasoning" individual and how abhorrent to the founding doctrine of our nation — that government is there to serve the people, not the people there to serve the government. The GCEL does not, and is not, serving the people of this state as the body, in total, was appointed, not elected as is required of a representative body. Not only that, but using focus groups and consensus building techniques are also antithetical to our founding doctrine as they stifle innovation and creativity with the intent of promoting a particular agenda.

Now, I do not question the zeal of any member of the GCEL. But if the members of the commission were truly into helping parents, the family as the foundation of society, the commission would be turning its attention to that which has been the primary cause of mothers working outside the home and the problems resulting from the absence of a parent at home for the children: high taxes; and the commission would be looking at ways to eradicate the high taxes that have forced mothers into the workforce. Such, of course, would also cause the commission to look at its own funding — public tax dollars — $1.8 million to date, not a small chunk of change to those out here who work for a living and who struggle to support their families because of the high taxes. But instead of doing that, the commission is looking at ways in which the government can take over the role of parent to children, antithetical to the best interests of society as a whole, families as a whole, and to children in general. One can only come to the conclusion that the commission pursues this path because the commission has an underlying philosophy that is antithetical to the founding doctrine of this nation, and to the best interests of children, families, and families as the foundation of society in a free nation.

I sat in the meeting in Spokane and listened as Mrs Locke told the audience of young, obviously impressionable, mothers present, that when her first was born, she didn't know how to be a parent. I find that interesting, considering that parenting is instinctive. As a mother of two grown daughters, I had no problem being a parent — I did what came naturally and used common sense. I also raised my two daughters quite well without the help of the state, and for several periods of time, on my own. If Mrs Locke and Mrs Gates don't know how to be parents, what makes them think, or any remaining member of the commission think, that they know better than parents how children should be raised? This is attune to Dr Spock and his baby books when I was growing up. Before he died, he admitted what an awful father he was, and how his philosophies sounded good, but didn't work. Think of all the children out there, raised according to Dr Spock and his twisted philosophy of raising children. Just as with the GCEL, there was no scientifically validated research to support his contentions either; the difference being that while people voluntarily pursued Dr Spock's beliefs about how to raise a child, the work of the GCEL will be forced on parents, like it or not. Evidence of that surfaced early on and became "in your face" with the advent of the Children's Bill of Rights. Evidence of that also exists in Mrs Locke's fascination with communist China's early childhood education system — a system that is intended, in every facet, to augment the interests of the oppressive communist state!!!! As with the Children's Bill of Rights, the KCTS presentation "Precious Children" was also very much "in your face." And, of course, one cannot ignore the fact that there is no scientifically validated research that proves the contention of the commission and Governor Locke — that early childhood brain development is contingent on early childhood experiences. In the absence of that scientifically validated research, the work of the commission is relegated to nothing more than a political agenda.

In short, ladies and gentlemen, the work of the GCEL, supposedly established to "help" parents, is antithetical to not only the family, but the family as the foundation of society, to our society, to children, and to furthering the cause of freedom.

If your intent is to truly help people, then you need to change the direction of your commission to that which truly helps people instead of working to establish a self-serving government bureaucracy whose oppressive and intrusive policies are antithetical to freedom and will, therefore, only hurt parents, families, and children.

Sincerely,

Lynn M Stuter

Nine Mile Falls, Washington

╪