Public education levels the playing field.

It provides, at minimum, an opportunity for middle-, working-class and even economically disadvantaged students to pursue their aspirations.

We may argue over the strengths and weaknesses of public education, but I don’t believe there can be a functional democratic system without it.

There is, presently, discussion afoot about whether preschools, especially for low-income families, should be publicly funded. There is sufficient data to support the position that pre-kindergarten boosts the readiness of children to enter kindergarten. Whether these gains are sustainable is another question. If they are not sustainable, we are left to find the answer to that question.

Cathy Fukunaga stated in a recent column ("Trained parents have better effect on children than universal preschool," Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, Jan. 27) that "preschool is a privilege not an entitlement" and that children are better served by responsible trained parents who are "empowered … (to) be more responsive to their children … "

All well and good, but how about children who are born into families for whom, socially and culturally, Western-style educational pursuits are outside their experience — e.g., certain Pacific Islanders; or broken families; families that are destitute or homeless; or families where there is abuse, alcoholism or drugs; or where a mother or father, or both, are incarcerated?

We may believe that everyone should be like us, but in the real world there are a multitude of problems that prevent parents from contributing actively to the education of their children.

What happens to those children?

If we conclude that because their families are dysfunctional, that they are not deserving of the boost that early publicly funded education can provide, we are making a tragic mistake.

Public education is not a privilege. It is necessary, if we are to strive for a balanced and healthy society where all children believe they have the opportunity to become the people they want to become.

The only debate should be about when that education should begin.

For children in circumstances where education-building is not going to occur in the home, it is my opinion, based on years of working with disadvantaged young people, that it should begin as early as possible, and age 3 is not too early.

Education is the great leveler, and if not started early in life, when the brain’s development is greatest, the child will, potentially, be handicapped for life. This is neither good for the person nor for society.

One of the great community organizers, Saul Alinsky, hypothesized that "have nots" are dangerous because they have no hope, and, therefore, "nothing to lose." This view was supported by psychiatrist Eric Berne, who developed the paradigm later popularized as "I’m OK, you’re OK."

Berne described four life positions, the most dangerous being the "I’m not OK, you’re not OK" position. That position is both homicidal and suicidal. Fundamentally, the person in the extreme of that position doesn’t believe that life holds any meaning, and, therefore, doesn’t care whether he lives or dies and doesn’t care whether anyone else lives or dies either.

Programs that are inclusionary, not exclusionary, where children at the earliest ages believe they are one with the world and not separate and apart from it, regardless of their family circumstance, are going to feel that they belong, and that they are OK and that other people are OK.

The initial outlay of money for preschool is, in my opinion, well worth the eventual financial savings and benefits to the quality of life for everyone.