![[e-mail]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/presentation/v2/images/header/email-15x10.gif){kind=small}
Subscribe
![[search]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/presentation/v1/images/icons/16x12/search-form-icon.gif){kind=icon}
Site Search
Raleigh, N.C. — McCrory administration appointee Dianna Lightfoot now says she will not take the job leading the state's pre-kindergarten program.
Lightfoot's appointment was announced Tuesday. But questions were raised about potential conflict of interest because she founded and headed an organization that advocated against publicly funded early childhood education programs like NC Pre-K.
On Wednesday night, Lightfoot deleted her Twitter account, in which she referred to Hillary Clinton as a "butch" and questioned whether ultrasonic waves had caused the 2011 Japan earthquake. A Facebook account that remained online referred to gay rights protesters as "bigots."
A YouTube video also emerged of Lightfoot speaking at a tea party rally in the Stokes County town of Pinnacle in September, equating the Affordable Care Act with "enslavement" and urging the audience to rise up against it.
Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Julie Henry released the following statement shortly after noon Thursday:
"Dianna Lightfoot was scheduled to start at HHS next week as Director of Child Development and Early Education. Ms. Lightfoot informed Secretary (Aldona) Wos this morning that she does not wish to be a distraction to the department and will pursue other opportunities. Secretary Wos accepted this decision."
WRAL News also has learned that Lightfoot might have voted improperly in three North Carolina elections.
State law requires voters to register at the address where they live, but elections records show Lightfoot gave the address of a UPS store in Winston-Salem as her residence.
Lightfoot hasn't responded to requests for an explanation.
Likewise, DHHS and the Governor's Office haven't explained the vetting process they used to select Lightfoot – or other job candidates. The information about her background and social media posts was easily available through a Google search.
![[READ STORY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/national_world/national/2013/05/14/12445890/12446751-1368816960-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/local/2013/05/13/12441232/hahn-100x75.jpg)
![[READ STORY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/business/2013/05/06/12417151/2457a21a00d94324b6fc448c8ec173d0-Photo-1-100x70.jpg)
![[GALLERY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/2013/03/28/12278304/LNL-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/traffic/2009/07/23/5645694/beltline-100x75.jpg)
![[GALLERY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/2013/03/04/12182235/12182236-1362457268-100x75.jpg)
WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.
This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.
February 7, 2013 6:43 p.m.
I'm pretty much in agreement with requiring something in return for government assistance. I'm just not sure if I would want some of these "parents" in the same room as my pre-k kid. Of course, I'm way past that age, so let's do it.
February 7, 2013 6:40 p.m.
February 7, 2013 6:38 p.m.
February 7, 2013 6:37 p.m.
Wait, I thought it was only Democrats that were supposed to be committing voter fraud? Funny that the only cases anyone can ever find are done by republicans
February 7, 2013 6:37 p.m.
" But there is controversy over whether it works well enough considering the Costs."
Is there? you do know that just because a right wing nut doesn't like something doesn't mean there is any controversy in the real world.
February 7, 2013 6:35 p.m.
February 7, 2013 6:29 p.m.
February 7, 2013 6:29 p.m.
February 7, 2013 6:19 p.m.
February 7, 2013 6:17 p.m.
February 7, 2013 6:14 p.m.
Hmm.. now why would someone have children if they didn't care enough about them to provide support at home? Maybe because they're a passport to a wide range of government payouts that have no conditions attached.
THERE'S THE PROBLEM. NO CONDITIONS. It's free money and services you can collect without getting off the couch.
Number one should be that parent(s) should have to contribute to the functioning of the pre-k. There's a lot of babysitting and cleaning involved. Require the parents to chip-in.
Require people to do something for the Gov benefits.
How much do you want to bet that -- as soon as having babies isn't an easy way to gain money and services while sitting at home doing nothing -- people would stop having babies they can't afford and don't support at home.
I agree, the cycle of poverty is a problem, but handing out free money with no requirement to get off the couch is only going to ensure the cycle continues.
February 7, 2013 6:14 p.m.
February 7, 2013 6:13 p.m.
February 7, 2013 6:12 p.m.
Whew, North Carolina is getting ready to be on all the front pages. Why don't we just marry South Carolina and become the great nation of stupid: CAROLINA!
February 7, 2013 6:12 p.m.
February 7, 2013 6:09 p.m.
February 7, 2013 6:09 p.m.
February 7, 2013 5:55 p.m.
McCrory's other nut, Woos....
February 7, 2013 5:54 p.m.
February 7, 2013 5:52 p.m.
I think Republicans want to kill programs like this because they need to keep kids on the "schools to prison" track to feed the nations for-profit prison system.
February 7, 2013 5:51 p.m.
February 7, 2013 5:42 p.m.
1. Formulate hypothesis 2. Cherry pick data to prove your hypothesis. 3. Market it to the masses as a factual study."
Oh god yeah, heritage "studies" are garbage. But federal studies do say that cognitive gains fade by 3rd grade.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/09/15headstart.h32.html
However, there are other gains that don't fade. My concern is if they are really "gains" or simply pressure on schools to not flunk kids, to make sure they graduate by lessening discipline procedures etc. all in the hopes of raising graduation rates and looking better artificially.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/jan/16/glenn-grothman/wisconsin-state-sen-glenn-grothman-says-recent-res/
February 7, 2013 5:41 p.m.
February 7, 2013 5:41 p.m.
Because Duke and UNC said so? First, UNC's disgraced. Second, did you think lib teachers would say anything against govt day care dressed up as education?
February 7, 2013 5:28 p.m.
Because it is usually something that their wealthy benefactors haven't found a way to line their pockets with tax payer money yet. Ever wonder why defense is never on the chopping block? It certainly isn't because they are concerned with our safety.
You better believe if they could find a way to list Pre-K on the NYSE the budget line would triple.
February 7, 2013 5:27 p.m.
February 7, 2013 5:24 p.m.
Time for this taxpayer funded daycare program to END!
February 7, 2013 5:24 p.m.
3rd grade is the approximate age where developmental differences even out. Kids develop at different rates, and that still skews results through 1st and 2nd grade, but by 3rd grade any differences can be attributed more to innate ability than to development. Imagine how much further behind those kids would be cognitively if they didn't have that program, and how much more negative their feelings about school would be, and how much more deeply ingrained those negative feelings would be. It would be ridiculous for us to expect a Pre-K program to be translate into better SAT scores and high school GPAs; at some point we have to accept that they're not an eternal cure-all but that they're definitely a really valuable interim measure.
February 7, 2013 5:20 p.m.
February 7, 2013 5:17 p.m.
February 7, 2013 5:17 p.m.
Your spin is that it was a waste of time and money for those students to be in those programs. What you're overlooking, though, is so obvious it seems deliberate and malicious that you would overlook it: These kids weren't selected to attend at random. They were invited based on need. The kids who didn't attend? They largely didn't need to b/c they had appropriate support from home. So the fact that these kids are approximately equal to their peers who didn't go is actually a positive thing. They caught up where they probably never would have thanks to such programs.
Why is it that when we decide to cut spending, it's always those who are most in need who have to sacrifice first?
February 7, 2013 5:13 p.m.
EVER NOTICE THAT?
February 7, 2013 5:13 p.m.
February 7, 2013 5:12 p.m.
February 7, 2013 5:11 p.m.
Considering his source was Heritage I have already made up my mind that it is probably a flawed study. The Republican scientific method is usually something along the lines of:
1. Formulate hypothesis 2. Cherry pick data to prove your hypothesis. 3. Market it to the masses as a factual study.
For those that don't believe me, I challenge you to produce a conservative "study" that has findings contrary to what they set out to "prove".
February 7, 2013 5:10 p.m.
February 7, 2013 5:08 p.m.
Uhhh, yeah, a link to the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, whose own website describes them as 'a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote CONSERVATIVE public policies...' Do you think you might have seen the problem w/ that before you posted it?
February 7, 2013 5:08 p.m.
http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/articles/updates/do-pre-k-gains-fade-over-time
February 7, 2013 5:05 p.m.
Your "argument" basically proves the success of these programs. The goal isn't for them to be "further along". The goal is for them to be at grade level. Underprivileged kids often do not get the same nurturing at home that their counterparts get. Therefore without these programs, the same studies would find that these kids would be lagging their counterparts by a significant margin by third grade. The K-3 years are the most formative years when kids learn to read. If these kids lag their counterparts by third grade it would be much more difficult to get them up to grade level at that point. It is funny that even when conservatives use facts, they either still don't understand how to interpret them or twist them around to fit their narrative.
February 7, 2013 5:05 p.m.
I agree and have seen these studies. However, I have also seen studies that show that graduates of these programs tend to do better longterm as well so its hard for me to decide one way or the other and I'm trying to make up my mind.
February 7, 2013 5:01 p.m.
Nothing has failed. The One has turned us around, no matter how hard you right-wing tea-partying rich extremists try to deny it. Like it or not, you don't have a right to profit on the suffering of everyone else.
February 7, 2013 4:59 p.m.
Link to one of the most recent studies by HHS on early childhood education
February 7, 2013 4:51 p.m.
February 7, 2013 4:49 p.m.
February 7, 2013 4:48 p.m.
Maybe so it would no longer exist?
February 7, 2013 4:44 p.m.
February 7, 2013 4:42 p.m.
Well if she was a democrat she would never had made such bigoted comments anyway.
February 7, 2013 4:39 p.m.
February 7, 2013 4:34 p.m.
http://www.wral.com/state-s-new-pre-k-chief-opposes-pre-k/12073587/
There is an ongoing study by Duke University (Kenneth Dodge, Helen Ladd, and Clara Muschkin) that shows that the cost-benefit ratio is very high, ie. paying a little now gets the same results as paying a lot more later. Also look at the research done by UNC's Frank Porter Graham Institute. Google should find it for you.
The evidence is overwhelming - effective Pre-K makes a smarter, better, and more productive society that benefits everyone.
Interestingly enough, NC has recently achieved an 80% graduation rate, the highest in god-know-how-long... Those students graduating now would have been approx. 4years old when Gov. Hunt laid the groundwork for Pre-K in 1997...
February 7, 2013 4:34 p.m.