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

[Anonymous]

Gosh, what a bunch of judgmental nonsense. If you think your kid isn't ready to go to full day preschool (which I think often has more to do with how the parents feel than the well being of the kids--kids are pretty adaptable) it's not compulsory to start education until kindergarden. I think this program is a wonderful way to both ease the burden of working parents and close the achievement gap and provide developmentally appropriate early childhood education for people across the income spectrum. The fact that both poor families and middle class families are happy with the education and care that are provided in these settings is very promising for promoting social mobility and preventing the segregation by class that is so endemic in american education.

[Anonymous]

I cannot believe the teacher post about "kids should not have been born" came so quickly
Those kids should not have been born but you are still paying for their 12 years of schooling, parents possibly qualify for wic and foodstamps so you are paying for that as well

One way or another support for those kids is not your choice even though someone else descided to breed without permission from a school teacher

One day the school teacher will be old and claim social security and the ones paying into the system keeping him/her afloat are those kids who should not have been born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?"

You are absolutely missing the point. The vast majority of the kids who will benefit from the "free" pre-k program do not come from middle class families who may have the option of leaving a parent at home should the government provide a 24k tax break. They come from dysfunctional homes where there are no toys or books, where they are shuffled from one disinterested (yet free or low cost) caretaker to another while their parent works one or more non-professional jobs to make ends meet. These are the kids the city aims to help with the program.

Oh bull shit. These are not the kids who are helped. If that was the case, there would be income requirements, and I'd be okay with that.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the poster that said that all that money going into the system for PK3 should be available to those not using it as a tax break. I would rather live in poverty than send my DS to the pk3 program at my inbounds school. Yet- I am still paying loads in taxes that will never benefit my children in the least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster that said that all that money going into the system for PK3 should be available to those not using it as a tax break. I would rather live in poverty than send my DS to the pk3 program at my inbounds school. Yet- I am still paying loads in taxes that will never benefit my children in the least.

so do you think charter schools should not be allowed to provide preK 3 either?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster that said that all that money going into the system for PK3 should be available to those not using it as a tax break. I would rather live in poverty than send my DS to the pk3 program at my inbounds school. Yet- I am still paying loads in taxes that will never benefit my children in the least.

Do you think that the only programs that benefit your children are the programs your children directly participate in? I think that you're mistaking taxes for user fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster that said that all that money going into the system for PK3 should be available to those not using it as a tax break. I would rather live in poverty than send my DS to the pk3 program at my inbounds school. Yet- I am still paying loads in taxes that will never benefit my children in the least.

The point of taxes is that everybody chips in for the community, even if you choose not to use the service or infrastructure that is funded. Should those who don't drive also get a tax break for the portion of their taxes that is used to build and maintain highways? What you are asking for would mean defunding this program, which may be just what you want. Maybe you should move?

[Anonymous]

I am PP who would like to use her education funds as I see fit. Just give me a tax credit for what would have been spent on my DS for PK3 to help me work less and stay home with him instead of sending him to a school that can't handle the kids there now. How is that taking away from the greater good? I pay way more in-- so keep the rest and just give me what would have been spent on him so I can have a choice in how he is cared for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am PP who would like to use her education funds as I see fit. Just give me a tax credit for what would have been spent on my DS for PK3 to help me work less and stay home with him instead of sending him to a school that can't handle the kids there now. How is that taking away from the greater good? I pay way more in-- so keep the rest and just give me what would have been spent on him so I can have a choice in how he is cared for.

You just don't get it. Taxes are not user fees. There isn't enough money in the pot if only those who use the service pay for it (at current tax rates). If everybody in the community chips in, costs for the individual who actually uses the service are lower. That is the idea behind any public funding. It is fair because you have the OPTION of using the service. You don't want Pre-K to get public funding, and you are entitled to that position, but you need to be aware that that's what you are asking when you want to get a "tax break" for your son's unused spot.

[Anonymous]

Don't worry- I get it. I don't agree with it. I have a child who is eligible for the benefit. Just give me what the government would have paid for him. It is simple and can be done- it is just the stupid belief that the DC government can do a better job of raising my kid than I can.

[Anonymous]

Truthfully I wish they got rid of welfare and just provide free childcare. I think it would allow/force so many more people to be working. I don't know how the poor in this area afford $1500-2000 a month in childcare unless they just don't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry- I get it. I don't agree with it. I have a child who is eligible for the benefit. Just give me what the government would have paid for him. It is simple and can be done- it is just the stupid belief that the DC government can do a better job of raising my kid than I can.

Do you expect a credit if you choose to send your child to private school versus public?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry- I get it. I don't agree with it. I have a child who is eligible for the benefit. Just give me what the government would have paid for him. It is simple and can be done- it is just the stupid belief that the DC government can do a better job of raising my kid than I can.

I drive very little. Yet I pay taxes for roads. I'd like most of that money back, please, thank you. I have other things I'd like to spend it on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry- I get it. I don't agree with it. I have a child who is eligible for the benefit. Just give me what the government would have paid for him. It is simple and can be done- it is just the stupid belief that the DC government can do a better job of raising my kid than I can.

You just proved that you really do not get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry- I get it. I don't agree with it. I have a child who is eligible for the benefit. Just give me what the government would have paid for him. It is simple and can be done- it is just the stupid belief that the DC government can do a better job of raising my kid than I can.

Do you expect a credit if you choose to send your child to private school versus public?

I'm sure many of that mindset do.