New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don't we just have the state or district in this case adopt the kids from birth through age 18? We can equip schools with Murphy beds in the hallways and we already feed the kids free breakfast and lunch. Why not just add dinner too? I am a teacher and while I think it is important for students to come to school ready to learn, I think we need to draw the line somewhere. After this, will we then add free pre-k for 2 years old? For toddlers?

What an odd post. You clearly don't understand the societal benefits of making affordable childcare available to everyone. Most other developed countries have this to a much greater extent than the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the teacher who posted before. I think a big part of the issue here is that people expect someone to pick up the slack for them in terms of childcare. I'm a single mother and I pay a lot for before and after school childcare for my DD and I paid a lot for daycare before she started school. At no point did I think, "Gee, I really think the government needs to help me out here." I made the choice to have a child and made sure I had the funds to raise her. Why should my taxes go to subsidize other people's poor financial planning?

Because it's good for the children born to those people.

[Anonymous]

No it isn't. The children born to those parents start off behind and usually stay that way. If I wanted free childcare for babies/toddlers, I'd move to Europe and pay a ton in taxes. In a few years, people will start demanding this too. Personal responsibility has gone out the window. When our taxes go up, we'll know why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a great point:

Unexpectedly, another big benefit soon emerged: My son was learning much more at preschool than he had at day care. That’s because — surprise, surprise — his public-school teachers are exponentially better educated and (see any causality here?) far better compensated. The average starting salary for a D.C.P.S. elementary-school teacher, even at the early-childhood level, is just over $50,000. The average salary of a day-care provider is $19,300.

Interestingly, though, OSSE DC has found that children coming from community-based child care scored better in several areas: language development, social-emotional development, and cognitive development, as compared to children who went to DCPS or charter schools for preschool. I learned this at a meeting I attended there over the summer. They weren't exactly yelling it from the mountaintop, but I saw it plain as day in a handout/PowerPoint I was given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No it isn't. The children born to those parents start off behind and usually stay that way. If I wanted free childcare for babies/toddlers, I'd move to Europe and pay a ton in taxes. In a few years, people will start demanding this too. Personal responsibility has gone out the window. When our taxes go up, we'll know why.

OK, you're right. Children who picked the wrong parents should accept the consequences of their bad choices.

Plus they're doomed anyway, and there's nothing we can do about it. Why not just send them straight from the hospital to jail? That's where they'll end up anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the teacher who posted before. I think a big part of the issue here is that people expect someone to pick up the slack for them in terms of childcare. I'm a single mother and I pay a lot for before and after school childcare for my DD and I paid a lot for daycare before she started school. At no point did I think, "Gee, I really think the government needs to help me out here." I made the choice to have a child and made sure I had the funds to raise her. Why should my taxes go to subsidize other people's poor financial planning?

Because it's good for the children born to those people.

And it's good for society as a whole. Everyone benefits from well-educated and wel-taken care of future adults..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the teacher who posted before. I think a big part of the issue here is that people expect someone to pick up the slack for them in terms of childcare. I'm a single mother and I pay a lot for before and after school childcare for my DD and I paid a lot for daycare before she started school. At no point did I think, "Gee, I really think the government needs to help me out here." I made the choice to have a child and made sure I had the funds to raise her. Why should my taxes go to subsidize other people's poor financial planning?

Because it's good for the children born to those people.

And it's good for society as a whole. Everyone benefits from well-educated and wel-taken care of future adults..

No, no it's not. I don't agree with either one of these posters. I think we're solving the wrong problem here. I don't WANT the government to provide free childcare so that both parents can work 45+ hours every week outside the home. Don't get me wrong, plenty of people make those choices and that's valid. However, so so so so so many of us are FORCED into that. The answer is a living wage so that both parents can work if they want, or one provider can support a family and the parent can scale back and stay home, and engage with his / her children. OR, a living wage that allows parents to choose the childcare model that works best for their family. I don't believe in forcing parents into a shitty workforce and then as some bitter consolation prize, giving them "free" but substandard childcare. And I don't like what that model has done for the rest of us. Full time preschool starting at two years old, are you kidding me? Kids at two do not belong in school and frankly, at three years old, some of them still don't. They belong at home, with a loving parent, or a nanny, or at a childcare center where they are free to play and live as a child. NOT where they are a captive tiny audience forced to do the educational work of much older children. VERY few of the public or charter preschools are developmentally appropriate. They are childcare. THEY ARE CHILDCARE. And the educators at these places think "oh, well, we'll cram some early reading and math while we're at it." There are a few exceptions to the rules, but they are exceptions. And we all just swallow it down because it is free. Because we think it beats paying for childcare. Because we want or are forced to have both parents working 60 hour workweeks.

Why in the hell bother to have kids? And if you have kids and are FORCED into that sort of life, what a pity. Yes, indeed, we are fixing the wrong problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the teacher who posted before. I think a big part of the issue here is that people expect someone to pick up the slack for them in terms of childcare. I'm a single mother and I pay a lot for before and after school childcare for my DD and I paid a lot for daycare before she started school. At no point did I think, "Gee, I really think the government needs to help me out here." I made the choice to have a child and made sure I had the funds to raise her. Why should my taxes go to subsidize other people's poor financial planning?

Because it's good for the children born to those people.

And it's good for society as a whole. Everyone benefits from well-educated and wel-taken care of future adults..

No, no it's not. I don't agree with either one of these posters. I think we're solving the wrong problem here. I don't WANT the government to provide free childcare so that both parents can work 45+ hours every week outside the home. Don't get me wrong, plenty of people make those choices and that's valid. However, so so so so so many of us are FORCED into that. The answer is a living wage so that both parents can work if they want, or one provider can support a family and the parent can scale back and stay home, and engage with his / her children. OR, a living wage that allows parents to choose the childcare model that works best for their family. I don't believe in forcing parents into a shitty workforce and then as some bitter consolation prize, giving them "free" but substandard childcare. And I don't like what that model has done for the rest of us. Full time preschool starting at two years old, are you kidding me? Kids at two do not belong in school and frankly, at three years old, some of them still don't. They belong at home, with a loving parent, or a nanny, or at a childcare center where they are free to play and live as a child. NOT where they are a captive tiny audience forced to do the educational work of much older children. VERY few of the public or charter preschools are developmentally appropriate. They are childcare. THEY ARE CHILDCARE. And the educators at these places think "oh, well, we'll cram some early reading and math while we're at it." There are a few exceptions to the rules, but they are exceptions. And we all just swallow it down because it is free. Because we think it beats paying for childcare. Because we want or are forced to have both parents working 60 hour workweeks.

I was looking for the "like" button then remembered this is not Facebook! Anyway, great great comment.

Why in the hell bother to have kids? And if you have kids and are FORCED into that sort of life, what a pity. Yes, indeed, we are fixing the wrong problem.

[Anonymous]

PP again. We are institutionalizing our children. We are. It's not okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP again. We are institutionalizing our children. We are. It's not okay.

OK. But in reality, the choice is not: should we have universal pre-K, or should we have a living wage and the societal expection that full-time workers work 35 hours per week?

Rather, the choice is: should we have universal pre-K, or should we continue to have a system where each family is on its own to cobble together the least bad solution, using its own limited resources?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the teacher who posted before. I think a big part of the issue here is that people expect someone to pick up the slack for them in terms of childcare. I'm a single mother and I pay a lot for before and after school childcare for my DD and I paid a lot for daycare before she started school. At no point did I think, "Gee, I really think the government needs to help me out here." I made the choice to have a child and made sure I had the funds to raise her. Why should my taxes go to subsidize other people's poor financial planning?

Because it's good for the children born to those people.

And it's good for society as a whole. Everyone benefits from well-educated and wel-taken care of future adults..

If only our daycares and schools provided an education, I'd be all for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great point:

Unexpectedly, another big benefit soon emerged: My son was learning much more at preschool than he had at day care. That’s because — surprise, surprise — his public-school teachers are exponentially better educated and (see any causality here?) far better compensated. The average starting salary for a D.C.P.S. elementary-school teacher, even at the early-childhood level, is just over $50,000. The average salary of a day-care provider is $19,300.

Interestingly, though, OSSE DC has found that children coming from community-based child care scored better in several areas: language development, social-emotional development, and cognitive development, as compared to children who went to DCPS or charter schools for preschool. I learned this at a meeting I attended there over the summer. They weren't exactly yelling it from the mountaintop, but I saw it plain as day in a handout/PowerPoint I was given.

Interesting.

Yes, when I saw the subject of this post, I thought the article was going to be about the wonderful outcomes since universal preschool has been implemented. But the article is really just about how awesome it is to get free childcare, isn't it? Oh, yes, and the age-old argument that 3 year olds are learning more because they're not being cared by dumb people, which could inspire a discussion of what 3 year olds really NEED to be learning.

Why don't we subsidize SAHMs, or grandmothers? Why don't we subsidize community childcare providers? Why, since across the board, children of 1st generation immigrants have the best educational outcomes, don't we subsidize 1st generation immigrants to run childcare centers? (NEVER gonna happen, if we look at one of the key points of early schooling, which is to socialize our children into a culture in which, ironically, working hard and valuing studies are not as prized.) Why don't we place value in people who care for young children, and provide special funds for their continuing development, unless they have advanced degrees and work in something we call "school"? Why don't we value things like community relationships and family bonds as much as we do the needs of parents to work and children ultimately to work as well?

[Anonymous]

Wow the lack of understanding of reality to some people is amazing. As if it's just as simple as 'a parent stays home'.

In a system with no real universal pensions, no universal health care, no paid parental leave, massive student loan debt do you can have a chance at success, the assumption that anyone can 'just make it work' is so beyond naieve.

Also, having lived in 'high tax europe' there is something to be said for how they do it. Childcare, maternity leave, part time career paths all help families of every status 'make it work'.

Also dc doesn't require anyone partake in this. Don't want to? Don't. It's a great option. I'd rather save $24k a year to help my child pay for college than another year of preschool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. We are institutionalizing our children. We are. It's not okay.

OK. But in reality, the choice is not: should we have universal pre-K, or should we have a living wage and the societal expection that full-time workers work 35 hours per week?

Rather, the choice is: should we have universal pre-K, or should we continue to have a system where each family is on its own to cobble together the least bad solution, using its own limited resources?

You miss my point. By "solving" this problem in an unsatisfactory way, we get to say "see? problem solved. You have to work and be away from your children, but we won't fix the wage disparity and economy, so instead, here's your free childcare." I don't like that because I think it's damaging, and justifies and perpetuates the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow the lack of understanding of reality to some people is amazing. As if it's just as simple as 'a parent stays home'.

In a system with no real universal pensions, no universal health care, no paid parental leave, massive student loan debt do you can have a chance at success, the assumption that anyone can 'just make it work' is so beyond naieve.

Also, having lived in 'high tax europe' there is something to be said for how they do it. Childcare, maternity leave, part time career paths all help families of every status 'make it work'.

Also dc doesn't require anyone partake in this. Don't want to? Don't. It's a great option. I'd rather save $24k a year to help my child pay for college than another year of preschool.

Which poster has reduced it to a parent stays home? I'm one who said it solves the wrong problem. The problem is not just that you cannot afford childcare. The problem is that you can't afford all of your basic choices without sacrificing something. Maybe you want to work - that's great. But you clearly can't afford to pay childcare to make that happen. That's not okay. Giving you free childcare fulfills the need YOU want, but it also solves a problem with something that doesn't work for me. I don't WANT free childcare, which means making the only choice to make ends meet, which keeps me away from my kids for 50 hours a week or so. I also can't afford all of my basic choices, either. I would like to choose to scale back my hours so that my child is not in a daycare / "preschool" setting for 8-10 hours every day. i would like that 24K you're getting in free "preschool" to pay for a nanny, or in a tax break so that I can scale back my hours. Hell, my husband's income is not a ton higher than that. I'd love to get a 24K tax break so that one of us could stay home. Why do you get childcare and I don't get what I need for my family?