Why do some MoCo elementary schools offer Pre K and others don't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed - it's repulsive that I even have to consider the cost of daycare into whether or not we can have more children, whilst others in the community do not have that burden. You should have no more children than you can afford to love and take care of.

So you are drawing the conclusion that people who put their kids in subsidized daycare don't love them?

Nice way to pervert the point of the PP to the benefit of your own agenda. They said "that you can afford to love and take care of." It's time to get on board with a reading comprehension program for yourself.

Subsidized day care clearly falls under the category of "affording to take care of." You'll surely have to come up with a better approach the next time around, and yes I would agree that there is a legitimate justification for resenting that some people have to factor in the cost of daycare into having more children, while at the same time shouldering the burden for those that didn't consider it a contributing factor. At best, the argument about early education intervention for poor and special needs children that may not be getting stimulation at home is what makes sense here. At worst, however, with respect to the poor (not the special needs), it's a dangerous socialist program that is bound to contribute to the collapse and overtaxation of an already overburdened system. The reality is somewhere in between, but make no mistake, it's not all good.

So you are saying that low income families have children that you cannot afford to have because they are relying on this one year of subsidized pre-k for their kids? That's kind of an asinine argument - pre-K is for one year. They still have to worry about daycare for the other years - I don't think one year of Headstart was the make-or-break factor in having kids; and one year of subsidized care probably wouldn't be the make-or-break for you either. By the way, you too can have access to free pre-k - all you have to do is move to DC or Arlington.

[Anonymous]

For all of these posters who resent that their tax dollars are paying for poor children to go to pre-K: you are free to quit your job and become poor as well so your children can receive all these free benefits. If you really think the poor are winning, go ahead and become one of them.

[Anonymous]

FARMS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting. It's not like many in middle class can barely afford nursery school anymore. In fact, it's a large reason why I and several others I know quit our jobs when we had children. It just didn't make "cents" to work.

Why should we subsidize day care for others when we can't even afford it ourselves. Then the county struggles so badly to pay it's bills they have to install speed cameras and impose 5 cent bag taxes.

Disgusting. Just disgusting what's coming of our system.

Also tons of illegals and anchor babies in these programs sucking down tax resources. Montgomery county creates policies to invite illegals from all over the area to live their with instate tuition, day labor centers and CASA de Maryland Raza. That's why I moved the hell out to fairfax county. In a few years Montgomery will have nothing but welfare and illegals due to their progressive liberal policies.

[Anonymous]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/29/illegal-aliens-guide-to-top-five-best-places-to-live-in-america/

MOCO is #2 gooooooo mOCO!

[Anonymous]

Stay klassy, everyone!

[Anonymous]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/29/illegal-...est-places-to-live-in-america/

MOCO is #2 gooooooo mOCO!

Now THAT is an unbiased source.

[Anonymous]

They get free services prior to pre-k for daycare, etc in the early years. I have familiy members who receive these services and yes, these services are both a hinderance and a help. If these services did not exist and they saw their kids friends starving in the streets then yes, people would stop having kids that other people have to take care of. I'm not suggesting that the kids starve but we have to come up with some way that these people owe the money not someone else. I have seen people getting assistance but have cable with all the premiums, top cell phones, designer clothes, and brand name food choices in the grocery store, they are not using generic. The people that I know, for the most part, have luxury and a poor at the same time. These are the generational poverty people, who have their hand out and really never give a dime back to the system. The take their tax refund check that they never really earned and go to Disney, by an Ipad, or a coach bag. Perhaps, these refunds and etc. should go to paying back the debt that they have already incurred but have saddle the rest of us with. I do support giving a hand-up to anyone who has falling on hard times and safety nets are good for everyone. Most people who use the system as safety net would gladly pay back their debt when they get back on their feet. The generational poverty group will do whatever to make sure you are not able to collect their debts because they are trying to get everything out of the system and give nothing. I also saw in my family the folks doing the right thing struggling who get nothing not be able to afford a lot of the same things for their kids as the people getting services. Sorry, there is something wrong with the system. No, the person struggling does not want to be poorer but they do think it is incredibly unfair for someone on the system to live better than hardworking people. The problem becomes, if you can earn $1 more in salary and not qualify for benefits, what do you do? The system is set up to make you not strive for that $1. I see all the time, poorer people living in town that hardworking people can not afford to live in. Is is fair that a poor person can afford an apartment in Bethesda that is subsidized but a middle class person can not. What about a home worth over $500,000 advertising that they take housing vouchers. The housing vouchers can go up to around $2500 a month, I'm sure it is higher in some areas and lower in others. While a lot of people do not want to be poor, they also can not imagine being able to afford a $500,000 home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed - it's repulsive that I even have to consider the cost of daycare into whether or not we can have more children, whilst others in the community do not have that burden. You should have no more children than you can afford to love and take care of.

So you are drawing the conclusion that people who put their kids in subsidized daycare don't love them?

Nice way to pervert the point of the PP to the benefit of your own agenda. They said "that you can afford to love and take care of." It's time to get on board with a reading comprehension program for yourself.

Subsidized day care clearly falls under the category of "affording to take care of." You'll surely have to come up with a better approach the next time around, and yes I would agree that there is a legitimate justification for resenting that some people have to factor in the cost of daycare into having more children, while at the same time shouldering the burden for those that didn't consider it a contributing factor. At best, the argument about early education intervention for poor and special needs children that may not be getting stimulation at home is what makes sense here. At worst, however, with respect to the poor (not the special needs), it's a dangerous socialist program that is bound to contribute to the collapse and overtaxation of an already overburdened system. The reality is somewhere in between, but make no mistake, it's not all good.

So you are saying that low income families have children that you cannot afford to have because they are relying on this one year of subsidized pre-k for their kids? That's kind of an asinine argument - pre-K is for one year. They still have to worry about daycare for the other years - I don't think one year of Headstart was the make-or-break factor in having kids; and one year of subsidized care probably wouldn't be the make-or-break for you either. By the way, you too can have access to free pre-k - all you have to do is move to DC or Arlington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting. It's not like many in middle class can barely afford nursery school anymore. In fact, it's a large reason why I and several others I know quit our jobs when we had children. It just didn't make "cents" to work.

Why should we subsidize day care for others when we can't even afford it ourselves. Then the county struggles so badly to pay it's bills they have to install speed cameras and impose 5 cent bag taxes.

Disgusting. Just disgusting what's coming of our system.

Agreed this person is uninformed. For low income, it is not "daycare". The pre-k is 2.5 hours a day, that is not daycare. The special needs pre-K is mostly 2.5 hours a day and often our children would not be able to get into a typical preschool. If there were not a special needs pre-k , our children would be even further behind and not be able to attend a typical preschool. There are at least 2 "collaborative" pre-k's where typical children take classes with special needs children, the cost is $800 per year for typical children. One is a Montgomery Knolls and another at Forest Knolls. There may be more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting. It's not like many in middle class can barely afford nursery school anymore. In fact, it's a large reason why I and several others I know quit our jobs when we had children. It just didn't make "cents" to work.

Why should we subsidize day care for others when we can't even afford it ourselves. Then the county struggles so badly to pay it's bills they have to install speed cameras and impose 5 cent bag taxes.

Disgusting. Just disgusting what's coming of our system.

Maybe you should return to work, as this SAH "lifestyle" seems to be making you crabby.

Or move to North Dakota to be with your own kind.

[Anonymous]

We have cable. In fact, I just received an iPhone for Christmas. Both of us work. We own our home, and both children attend private school (preschool and elementary). Our son receives FREE services through MCPS b/c he's language-delayed and has some sensory issues.

What do you make of us, then - those who aren't receiving public assistance? Are you saying that WE don't deserve these services that are provided through the country THROUGH THE TAXES WE PAY? Or are you just picking on the poor?

I don't get it. So many of you are angry at a system that's trying to benefit children so that they have a chance to succeed in life. Why punish them when you're angry at the parents?

Signed,
two-teacher household

Anonymous wrote:They get free services prior to pre-k for daycare, etc in the early years. I have familiy members who receive these services and yes, these services are both a hinderance and a help. If these services did not exist and they saw their kids friends starving in the streets then yes, people would stop having kids that other people have to take care of. I'm not suggesting that the kids starve but we have to come up with some way that these people owe the money not someone else. I have seen people getting assistance but have cable with all the premiums, top cell phones, designer clothes, and brand name food choices in the grocery store, they are not using generic. The people that I know, for the most part, have luxury and a poor at the same time. These are the generational poverty people, who have their hand out and really never give a dime back to the system. The take their tax refund check that they never really earned and go to Disney, by an Ipad, or a coach bag. Perhaps, these refunds and etc. should go to paying back the debt that they have already incurred but have saddle the rest of us with. I do support giving a hand-up to anyone who has falling on hard times and safety nets are good for everyone. Most people who use the system as safety net would gladly pay back their debt when they get back on their feet. The generational poverty group will do whatever to make sure you are not able to collect their debts because they are trying to get everything out of the system and give nothing. I also saw in my family the folks doing the right thing struggling who get nothing not be able to afford a lot of the same things for their kids as the people getting services. Sorry, there is something wrong with the system. No, the person struggling does not want to be poorer but they do think it is incredibly unfair for someone on the system to live better than hardworking people. The problem becomes, if you can earn $1 more in salary and not qualify for benefits, what do you do? The system is set up to make you not strive for that $1. I see all the time, poorer people living in town that hardworking people can not afford to live in. Is is fair that a poor person can afford an apartment in Bethesda that is subsidized but a middle class person can not. What about a home worth over $500,000 advertising that they take housing vouchers. The housing vouchers can go up to around $2500 a month, I'm sure it is higher in some areas and lower in others. While a lot of people do not want to be poor, they also can not imagine being able to afford a $500,000 home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed - it's repulsive that I even have to consider the cost of daycare into whether or not we can have more children, whilst others in the community do not have that burden. You should have no more children than you can afford to love and take care of.

So you are drawing the conclusion that people who put their kids in subsidized daycare don't love them?

Nice way to pervert the point of the PP to the benefit of your own agenda. They said "that you can afford to love and take care of." It's time to get on board with a reading comprehension program for yourself.

Subsidized day care clearly falls under the category of "affording to take care of." You'll surely have to come up with a better approach the next time around, and yes I would agree that there is a legitimate justification for resenting that some people have to factor in the cost of daycare into having more children, while at the same time shouldering the burden for those that didn't consider it a contributing factor. At best, the argument about early education intervention for poor and special needs children that may not be getting stimulation at home is what makes sense here. At worst, however, with respect to the poor (not the special needs), it's a dangerous socialist program that is bound to contribute to the collapse and overtaxation of an already overburdened system. The reality is somewhere in between, but make no mistake, it's not all good.

So you are saying that low income families have children that you cannot afford to have because they are relying on this one year of subsidized pre-k for their kids? That's kind of an asinine argument - pre-K is for one year. They still have to worry about daycare for the other years - I don't think one year of Headstart was the make-or-break factor in having kids; and one year of subsidized care probably wouldn't be the make-or-break for you either. By the way, you too can have access to free pre-k - all you have to do is move to DC or Arlington.

[Anonymous]

Teachers or not, you contribute to the system they do not. I have no problem with special needs services. I know it is not the kids fault but the kids are being hinder by the government handouts to their parent. I have family on and never on assistance and trust me the ones working multiple jobs to get by are much better off then ones on public assistance. The problem is the system that penalizes you for earning a buck more, that allows generational poverty to exist, that continues to give you more money the more kids you have. I believe in safety nets but why should a family pay taxes and struggle to keep thei head above water and not afford to live in a community with top schools yet a person in subsidize housing can live in a nicer home, nicer community with better school. Where is the penalty? Why would I strive to provide for myself when will be forced to move to a more affordable neighborhood, with adequate housing and a below average school. There is no reason.


Signed someone with family receiving public assistance.