Email from Michelle Rhee - What does this mean? PS and Pre-K will be merged?

[Anonymous]

sorry, that's lower income CHILDREN that are no longer guaranteed a spot.

[Anonymous]

The head start classes (preschool and preK) was origianlly separated from the "regular" preschool and preK classes. Now they are in the same class with all of the benefits that were orignally only given to the Headstart Kids. (At my daughter school last year Headstart (preschool and Prek) were in the same classroom and the "regular preS and Prek each has ther own separated classes. This year, all of the preS are in the same class and all of the preK are all in another class. Head start still set aside a number of spaces for those who qualify for head start. The remaining slots go to the "regular" students. NO one was and still is not guaranteed a slot in PreS or PreK or Headstart.

[Anonymous]

Not true at our school. The classes are merged and all apply through the lottery. There is no preference in the lottery process for low-income kids.

[Anonymous]

All PreS and PRek whether headstart or not applies thru (or where supposed to apply thru) the lottery-some shcools do not have headstart. During the lottery process you had to indicate if your income qulified you for headstart. During this process it your school was a headstart school and you qulified for headstart you were offered a spot-headstart spot.

[Anonymous]

There was a "preference in the lottery process for low-income kids." When/if you applied thru the lottery(online) and if your school offered Headstart and "regular PreS/PreK" you were asked about your income. This is how they did the initial process of deteremining who was headstart eligible. Of course later in the proces you had to verify that you actually did qualify for headstart.

[Anonymous]

Yes, imagine the surprise of the low-income non-English speakers who don't own a computer and had no idea there was lottery process. In the past, they just showed up and got a spot. Now little Ella and Ian are there. Oh well!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, I am missing something here ... why would an "affluent white" parent want to send their 3 yr old to a Title I school in a Title I neighborhood?

If the parents meet the true definition of "affluent" then they have 18 - 20 options for preschool. Preschool tuition is no big thing when you're affluent.

We're sending our DD to a Title I school, though I'm not sure what a "Title I neighborhood" is. Perhaps you could explain.

Anyway, I'm sure we're considered "affluent", but we're happy to be saving the $1400 / mo on private preschool costs. And we love being involved in our community school. It's one of the reasons we love the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

OTOH, in the past, pre-school was segregated with poor kids in HeadStart and everybody else in charters and DCPS. This removes the stigma from the H.S. pre-school programs.

[Anonymous]

Plus it's a well-known fact that programs that are primarily for the poor become stigmatized as a way to eliminate them. Think Medicare vs Medicaid. Conservatives are always trying to "means-test" Social Security out of existence.

If public programs for early-childhood education are a good idea, then let's provide early-childhood education for everyone. It's the only way to ensure we do it properly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Plus it's a well-known fact that programs that are primarily for the poor become stigmatized as a way to eliminate them. Think Medicare vs Medicaid. Conservatives are always trying to "means-test" Social Security out of existence.

If public programs for early-childhood education are a good idea, then let's provide early-childhood education for everyone. It's the only way to ensure we do it properly.

Maybe because for a lot of people social security is a poor investment. I'd rather handle my own investments thanks than have a gigantic payroll tax on which I never see decent returns.

Sometimes when a lot of smart people call something a bad idea? It's because it's a bad idea. When Social Security was started there were 9 workers for every one recipient. By the time your pre-schooler is earning a paycheck there will be 2 workers for every recipient. It's a Ponzi scheme. Not Conservatives' collective fault that you can't do math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus it's a well-known fact that programs that are primarily for the poor become stigmatized as a way to eliminate them. Think Medicare vs Medicaid. Conservatives are always trying to "means-test" Social Security out of existence.

If public programs for early-childhood education are a good idea, then let's provide early-childhood education for everyone. It's the only way to ensure we do it properly.

Maybe because for a lot of people social security is a poor investment. I'd rather handle my own investments thanks than have a gigantic payroll tax on which I never see decent returns.

Sometimes when a lot of smart people call something a bad idea? It's because it's a bad idea. When Social Security was started there were 9 workers for every one recipient. By the time your pre-schooler is earning a paycheck there will be 2 workers for every recipient. It's a Ponzi scheme. Not Conservatives' collective fault that you can't do math.

Hmmm. A poor investment, you say? I suppose it is. But then again, that's because it's not an investment.

You know what else is a poor investment? Life insurance. If you take that money and put it in an index fund, and you don't die before your term expires, you'll make more money. The rest of the bloviation isn't worth responding to. They're discredited talking points. The SS trust-fund is absolutely solvent for the next 30-something years--and pretty much forever with minor adjustments to the tax rate. The fact that conservative dirtballs of both parties have been raiding the trust fund to cover general budgetary expenses doesn't reflect poorly on the program, but on the dirtballs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/the-myth-of-the-social-se_b_683450.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus it's a well-known fact that programs that are primarily for the poor become stigmatized as a way to eliminate them. Think Medicare vs Medicaid. Conservatives are always trying to "means-test" Social Security out of existence.

If public programs for early-childhood education are a good idea, then let's provide early-childhood education for everyone. It's the only way to ensure we do it properly.

Maybe because for a lot of people social security is a poor investment. I'd rather handle my own investments thanks than have a gigantic payroll tax on which I never see decent returns.

Sometimes when a lot of smart people call something a bad idea? It's because it's a bad idea. When Social Security was started there were 9 workers for every one recipient. By the time your pre-schooler is earning a paycheck there will be 2 workers for every recipient. It's a Ponzi scheme. Not Conservatives' collective fault that you can't do math.

Hmmm. A poor investment, you say? I suppose it is. But then again, that's because it's not an investment.

You know what else is a poor investment? Life insurance. If you take that money and put it in an index fund, and you don't die before your term expires, you'll make more money. The rest of the bloviation isn't worth responding to. They're discredited talking points. The SS trust-fund is absolutely solvent for the next 30-something years--and pretty much forever with minor adjustments to the tax rate. The fact that conservative dirtballs of both parties have been raiding the trust fund to cover general budgetary expenses doesn't reflect poorly on the program, but on the dirtballs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/the-myth-of-the-social-se_b_683450.html

The Huffington Post is not a news source, it's a gossip source. Any credible economist will tell you that social security takes an ever expanding piece of the national budget. It's a disgrace. There IS NO social security "trust fund." Money that comes out of your payroll today isn't going into a fund to support you in your old age. It is being redistributed to today's retirees. There's no bank saving your contribution. It simply isn't there. How is it possible that people don't know this? No wonder you think it's drivel, you don't understand it to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Ours were mixed already, so no biggie here.

[Anonymous]

Any credible economist will tell you that social security takes an ever expanding piece of the national budget. It's a disgrace.

Of course you're wrong. I posted a link that addressed pretty much all of the disinformation you're spewing. And rather than speak to any of that, it's frantic hand-waving.

While I appreciate the breeze, you're not fooling anyone.

[Anonymous]

There's no bank saving your contribution

Oh, and as I pointed out earlier, there are IOUs from the government in the trust-fund, since the money was taken for general expenditures. Is it possible that right-wing douchenozzles will welsh on that commitment? Sure, they're trying all the time. We might also welsh on paying back our Treasury bond debt obligations. We've never done it yet, but anythings possible.

Do you hold any investment in Treasury bonds? You know that there's no money in a bank somewhere that corresponds directly to that debt, right? Is that all a "Ponzi scheme" as well? If so, the entire global system of finance is a Ponzi scheme.

There are credible economists out there, but it sounds like *your* "credible economists" are ideological confidence men.