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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am PP and I NEVER said anything about ending the free public PK3 program- my only argument is that if the city finds it acceptable to subsidize daycare for its residents- then it would also be fitting that they in some way subsidize a parent staying home with that same toddler by providing a tax break for a parent to work less and stay home longer with their child.

I hear you. I was part of the group that got free pre-K for 3 year olds at under-enrolled DCPS schools and people said it was impossible and absurd to even mention. But a bunch of us banded together and lobbied to make it happen and it has come to fruition. We proved them wrong!

If you want your idea to succeed, you should look into doing the same. But your rhetoric of tearing down public preschool and implying that parents that use it are "institutionalizing" their kids is just not going to win you friends in this town. You may really believe that-- but the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that children love attending these schools.

A more politically palatable tack may be to say "Yes, I agree with universal preschool. In fact, I believe it needs to be MORE universal. Rather than limit public support of preschool to elementary schools, I think it should also include public support of those parents that are able to provide preschool support at home. One way to do this is to provide a DC income tax break to such parents." IF you can provide evidence that indicates that societies that support any choice a family makes regarding preschool are better than those that provide a more limited spectrum of support, all the better. I doubt there is any place that supports families with preschoolers more than DC, but I certainly would love to hear otherwise!

Good luck!

Confused. So if a single mom wanted to stay home until her kid was 5, she would get a stipend to do so? I don't think this makes sense. Sending all kids to high quality preschool and enabling their mothers to participate in the workforce makes much more sense.

There it is. There is the MOST f'd up argument that is the foundation of what I dislike about this. NO, it does NOT make sense to take kids out of loving homes with engaged moms (OR DADS!) who want to stay home with them and put them into a school institution so that mom and / or dad can go make the donuts. Not all people in this world should work outside the home. It's fine if two parents want to work, but we shouldn't make that choice for them, or say what "makes sense" for another family.

You are free to do whatever you like with your own family, up to and including homeschooling. Nobody is trying to take kids out of loving homes! But the government is not in the business of encouraging people to drop out of the workforce. I agree that there are many, many family supports that are missing in our country, but I think you are drawing a false comparison here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am PP and I NEVER said anything about ending the free public PK3 program- my only argument is that if the city finds it acceptable to subsidize daycare for its residents- then it would also be fitting that they in some way subsidize a parent staying home with that same toddler by providing a tax break for a parent to work less and stay home longer with their child.

I hear you. I was part of the group that got free pre-K for 3 year olds at under-enrolled DCPS schools and people said it was impossible and absurd to even mention. But a bunch of us banded together and lobbied to make it happen and it has come to fruition. We proved them wrong!

If you want your idea to succeed, you should look into doing the same. But your rhetoric of tearing down public preschool and implying that parents that use it are "institutionalizing" their kids is just not going to win you friends in this town. You may really believe that-- but the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that children love attending these schools.

A more politically palatable tack may be to say "Yes, I agree with universal preschool. In fact, I believe it needs to be MORE universal. Rather than limit public support of preschool to elementary schools, I think it should also include public support of those parents that are able to provide preschool support at home. One way to do this is to provide a DC income tax break to such parents." IF you can provide evidence that indicates that societies that support any choice a family makes regarding preschool are better than those that provide a more limited spectrum of support, all the better. I doubt there is any place that supports families with preschoolers more than DC, but I certainly would love to hear otherwise!

Good luck!

Confused. So if a single mom wanted to stay home until her kid was 5, she would get a stipend to do so? I don't think this makes sense. Sending all kids to high quality preschool and enabling their mothers to participate in the workforce makes much more sense.

There it is. There is the MOST f'd up argument that is the foundation of what I dislike about this. NO, it does NOT make sense to take kids out of loving homes with engaged moms (OR DADS!) who want to stay home with them and put them into a school institution so that mom and / or dad can go make the donuts. Not all people in this world should work outside the home. It's fine if two parents want to work, but we shouldn't make that choice for them, or say what "makes sense" for another family.

So you want government funded SAHMs? It already exists. It's called welfare.

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure that SAHM's with working spouses get subsidized by the government in a sense through the way that taxes work if you are married filing jointly. When both spouses make a roughly equal salary, then they pay more in taxes than someone where one parent stays home and the other is the breadwinner (see the concept of "marriage penalty"). Just throwing that out there, for all of those who whine that the tax code and their taxes do nothing for stay at home parents. There are other accommodations, like allowing a spouse to contribute to your IRA when you do not make any income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So you want government funded SAHMs? It already exists. It's called welfare.

Except for the part where Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (aka "welfare") actually has work requirements.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/work_requirements_0.pdf

(Somehow the belief that mothers ought to stay home to take care of their children doesn't apply to poor mothers.)

[Anonymous]

I don't feel the DCPS preschool is high-quality. As least the ones I have toured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am PP and I NEVER said anything about ending the free public PK3 program- my only argument is that if the city finds it acceptable to subsidize daycare for its residents- then it would also be fitting that they in some way subsidize a parent staying home with that same toddler by providing a tax break for a parent to work less and stay home longer with their child.

+1

+2

[Anonymous]

Confused. So if a single mom wanted to stay home until her kid was 5, she would get a stipend to do so? I don't think this makes sense. Sending all kids to high quality preschool and enabling their mothers to participate in the workforce makes much more sense.

She said tax credit, not stipend. Big difference. But, yes, I suppose this scheme would benefit only families with a bread winner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am PP and I NEVER said anything about ending the free public PK3 program- my only argument is that if the city finds it acceptable to subsidize daycare for its residents- then it would also be fitting that they in some way subsidize a parent staying home with that same toddler by providing a tax break for a parent to work less and stay home longer with their child.

I hear you. I was part of the group that got free pre-K for 3 year olds at under-enrolled DCPS schools and people said it was impossible and absurd to even mention. But a bunch of us banded together and lobbied to make it happen and it has come to fruition. We proved them wrong!

If you want your idea to succeed, you should look into doing the same. But your rhetoric of tearing down public preschool and implying that parents that use it are "institutionalizing" their kids is just not going to win you friends in this town. You may really believe that-- but the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that children love attending these schools.

A more politically palatable tack may be to say "Yes, I agree with universal preschool. In fact, I believe it needs to be MORE universal. Rather than limit public support of preschool to elementary schools, I think it should also include public support of those parents that are able to provide preschool support at home. One way to do this is to provide a DC income tax break to such parents." IF you can provide evidence that indicates that societies that support any choice a family makes regarding preschool are better than those that provide a more limited spectrum of support, all the better. I doubt there is any place that supports families with preschoolers more than DC, but I certainly would love to hear otherwise!

Good luck!

Confused. So if a single mom wanted to stay home until her kid was 5, she would get a stipend to do so? I don't think this makes sense. Sending all kids to high quality preschool and enabling their mothers to participate in the workforce makes much more sense.

There it is. There is the MOST f'd up argument that is the foundation of what I dislike about this. NO, it does NOT make sense to take kids out of loving homes with engaged moms (OR DADS!) who want to stay home with them and put them into a school institution so that mom and / or dad can go make the donuts. Not all people in this world should work outside the home. It's fine if two parents want to work, but we shouldn't make that choice for them, or say what "makes sense" for another family.

You are free to do whatever you like with your own family, up to and including homeschooling. Nobody is trying to take kids out of loving homes! But the government is not in the business of encouraging people to drop out of the workforce. I agree that there are many, many family supports that are missing in our country, but I think you are drawing a false comparison here.

Exactly. Even the European countries with the best social systems don't provide stipends to SAHPs (only for the first year, when there is paid maternity leave). But they do provide subsidized daycare, not just pre-school. They prefer lower income parents to stay in the workforce rather than collecting welfare and staying home. My brother pays around $250/month for full-time daycare in Berlin, but if you are really low income, it is free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't feel the DCPS preschool is high-quality. As least the ones I have toured.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Even the European countries with the best social systems don't provide stipends to SAHPs (only for the first year, when there is paid maternity leave). But they do provide subsidized daycare, not just pre-school. They prefer lower income parents to stay in the workforce rather than collecting welfare and staying home. My brother pays around $250/month for full-time daycare in Berlin, but if you are really low income, it is free.

Those countries are all massively broke (except Norway, which breaks even due to its oil production), and the high cost of their taxes and other government interventions has made young adult unemployment and underemployment epidemic, with the result that middle income people are not having kids at all. The average birthrate is 1.5 per woman, and if immigrants are taken out of that number, it is close to or below 1 per woman for the native born depending on the county. The very high cost of these social programs is not, on average, helping moms and kids; it is leading to fewer women becoming moms / fewer kids. I do not understand why this is seen as a positive, pro-woman, or pro-kid thing.

It would be lovely if you could spend money on families without also using high tax rates to take money away from families to fund that spending. Unless you are planning to strike a North Sea oil gusher (Norway), no one can do this. The statistics are grim: more spending, means less freedom for individuals' spending decisions, and also means that educated people who get hit by the taxes (since they are the earners) don't have as many kids, and often have no kids. That is a social disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Even the European countries with the best social systems don't provide stipends to SAHPs (only for the first year, when there is paid maternity leave). But they do provide subsidized daycare, not just pre-school. They prefer lower income parents to stay in the workforce rather than collecting welfare and staying home. My brother pays around $250/month for full-time daycare in Berlin, but if you are really low income, it is free.

Those countries are all massively broke (except Norway, which breaks even due to its oil production), and the high cost of their taxes and other government interventions has made young adult unemployment and underemployment epidemic, with the result that middle income people are not having kids at all. The average birthrate is 1.5 per woman, and if immigrants are taken out of that number, it is close to or below 1 per woman for the native born depending on the county. The very high cost of these social programs is not, on average, helping moms and kids; it is leading to fewer women becoming moms / fewer kids. I do not understand why this is seen as a positive, pro-woman, or pro-kid thing.

It would be lovely if you could spend money on families without also using high tax rates to take money away from families to fund that spending. Unless you are planning to strike a North Sea oil gusher (Norway), no one can do this. The statistics are grim: more spending, means less freedom for individuals' spending decisions, and also means that educated people who get hit by the taxes (since they are the earners) don't have as many kids, and often have no kids. That is a social disaster.

Actually, Germany (which is what I was thinking of in my post) is doing pretty well economically, in many ways better than the US in recent years.

[Anonymous]

Do you all really think that everyone should work? Is there any idea in your mind that maybe, just maybe, it might be better for our society in the long run if some people did not work? And if you disagree, what do you think about the fact that we have more people than jobs? You not only think everyone must work, but they must work for substandard pay, part time, no benefits, etc?

It's easy to say everyone should work when you have a relatively easy job and good life and you see real value from working (whether personal fulfillment or a living wage). There are not enough jobs that pay living wages for everyone. Have you all forgot that helpful McDonalds primer on how a worker could live on its salary (plus a second job?) already?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you all really think that everyone should work? Is there any idea in your mind that maybe, just maybe, it might be better for our society in the long run if some people did not work? And if you disagree, what do you think about the fact that we have more people than jobs? You not only think everyone must work, but they must work for substandard pay, part time, no benefits, etc?

It's easy to say everyone should work when you have a relatively easy job and good life and you see real value from working (whether personal fulfillment or a living wage). There are not enough jobs that pay living wages for everyone. Have you all forgot that helpful McDonalds primer on how a worker could live on its salary (plus a second job?) already?

Let's not distract from the issue: One mother suggested that she should get a tax credit that was worth $24,000 because she doesn't take advantage of free preschool in DC. Nobody's advocating for non-living wages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can't just "move to Europe" (and work there and benefit from the superior social system). Not only America restricts immigration.

Exactly! Plus, if you did, your taxes weren't be that much higher compared to what you pay here. Higher, yes, but you'd get great services. In this country, you pay through your nose and don't get a lot.

Actually, I did just move to Europe. I lived there for many years and more than 50% of my earnings were sucked out in taxes. It was a HUGE shock to me who wasn't used to losing anywhere near that much in taxes here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Love this article. If preschool was free from age 3 in VA, I think we would already have kids. Too bad I can't convince DH to move into DC

VA does have this, I think, in Arlington. Depends on your income level.