Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools cannot overcome the parental advantage/ disadvantage faced by kids 18 hours a day outside of school. You cannot just throw $ at the problem.

This!!!!!! When are they going to learn this???? You cannot lift these kids up by stealing from
Our kids who have two loving parents at home including one present to meet the bus, provide a healthy snack, talk about school and work together on homework, then run carpool to sports, home cooked dinner, and any other enrichment (piano practice, play some chess, make up funny rhymes to memorize history and math).

Agreed. The solution for schools is to improve social services, housing, health care availablity and narrow the income gap.

I agree this is the solution, the problem is it isn't scalable. It's called community schools. It's the same concept with successful charter schools.

There isn't enough funding or folks willing to work super long hours for pretty low pay for it to be a universal solution.

What we can do is say take the top 100 highest poverty areas in the country and make a dent in that environment.

As an aside isn't this what social workers are supposed to be doing already?

I am a child of poor Asian immigrants. I hated being poor. My parents taught me that with education, you can move from the bottom to the top. I was a free lunch kid. I had to translate for my parents. I filled out all their forms. We now have a seven figure income. I still have to make phone calls, translate and fill out all their forms.

The child has to want change.

I have friends from childhood who blame their parents or racism. They think it isn’t fair for X reason. Others don’t make excuses and just worked hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a poor kid of illiterate or non English speaking parents will have no benefit or even regress if they attend free high quality pre-k?

Bull ! People are so scared of their mediocre kid getting outperformed by poor POC kids aren’t they?

Go read the studies yourself. The kids get a bump for a few years and then it regresses back to the level of the control group. In some cases worse.

In the article below, Vox talks about two studies where the kids in pre-k ended up worse. Vox is by no means a right wing site, and in the article you can feel the author put a liberal spin on the results.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22904345/pre-k-cash-baby-brain-social-science

The evidence shows that high-quality PK, which DC has, does make a difference. It can't be just babysitting. And while it may not help test scores, it does have a long term effect on crime, jobs and economic success.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/05/18/997501946/the-case-for-universal-pre-k-just-got-stronger

So some of the studies show that pre-k has a benefit. Some of the studies show that pre-k has no long term benefit or even a negative outcome. The results are mixed. You cannot just cherry pick the results you like and ignore the results you don't like. Also, if you read the Vox article you would know it mentions more than just test scores. Here is what Vox had to say:

The new study follows the same children through sixth grade, adding three more years of data. The upshot? the results just keep getting worse. Reading, writing, and science scores in sixth grade were all lower among pre-K kids than other kids, and the gap has grown since third grade. The researchers also found that pre-K kids were likelier to skip school or get into disciplinary trouble as they got older.

As far as I can tell the studies showing the negative outcomes are legitimate studies that were run on legitimate government sponsored pre-k programs. They are not low quality pre-k programs.

So as of now the jury is still out on Universal pre-k. Could it help? Potentially. Could it fail? Also, yes. You are gambling billions of dollars on the chance that it *may* help.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools cannot overcome the parental advantage/ disadvantage faced by kids 18 hours a day outside of school. You cannot just throw $ at the problem.

This!!!!!! When are they going to learn this???? You cannot lift these kids up by stealing from
Our kids who have two loving parents at home including one present to meet the bus, provide a healthy snack, talk about school and work together on homework, then run carpool to sports, home cooked dinner, and any other enrichment (piano practice, play some chess, make up funny rhymes to memorize history and math).

Agreed. The solution for schools is to improve social services, housing, health care availablity and narrow the income gap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a poor kid of illiterate or non English speaking parents will have no benefit or even regress if they attend free high quality pre-k?

Bull ! People are so scared of their mediocre kid getting outperformed by poor POC kids aren’t they?

Go read the studies yourself. The kids get a bump for a few years and then it regresses back to the level of the control group. In some cases worse.

In the article below, Vox talks about two studies where the kids in pre-k ended up worse. Vox is by no means a right wing site, and in the article you can feel the author put a liberal spin on the results.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22904345/pre-k-cash-baby-brain-social-science

\

Here's an article talking about Head Start from Chalkbeat.org:

https://www.chalkbeat.org/2019/8/8/21108602/a-new-study-questions-whether-head-start-still-produces-long-run-gains-seen-in-past-research

That’s why a new study comes a surprise. When researchers used similar methods as Deming to look at students born later, mostly between 1986 and 1996, they found that Head Start provided no clear long-term benefits. If anything, the program led to somewhat worse outcomes.

The research offers some of the most up-to-date information about how Head Start affects students years later, and raises questions whether Head Start continues to deliver the positive outcomes it did in the past. In 2016-17, a third of U.S. 3- to 5-year-olds living in poverty were enrolled in the program.

“We’re using methods that have been accepted for a long time … and now we’ve got a bunch of negative results,” said Dylan Lukes, a Harvard graduate student and one of the authors.

The researchers say the results should be interpreted with caution, as it’s a single study that goes against the grain of other research. A spokesperson for the division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that administers Head Start emphasized that point, too.

The agency “takes into account the large body of research and evidence on Head Start when developing Head Start program policy and practice, rather than considering any single study in isolation,” said Patrick Fisher. “Indeed, the study authors cite this broader body of evidence, which has demonstrated a variety of positive long-term outcomes for Head Start participants.”

Anonymous wrote:Schools cannot overcome the parental advantage/ disadvantage faced by kids 18 hours a day outside of school. You cannot just throw $ at the problem.

This!!!!!! When are they going to learn this???? You cannot lift these kids up by stealing from
Our kids who have two loving parents at home including one present to meet the bus, provide a healthy snack, talk about school and work together on homework, then run carpool to sports, home cooked dinner, and any other enrichment (piano practice, play some chess, make up funny rhymes to memorize history and math).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a poor kid of illiterate or non English speaking parents will have no benefit or even regress if they attend free high quality pre-k?

Bull ! People are so scared of their mediocre kid getting outperformed by poor POC kids aren’t they?

Go read the studies yourself. The kids get a bump for a few years and then it regresses back to the level of the control group. In some cases worse.

In the article below, Vox talks about two studies where the kids in pre-k ended up worse. Vox is by no means a right wing site, and in the article you can feel the author put a liberal spin on the results.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22904345/pre-k-cash-baby-brain-social-science

\

Here's an article talking about Head Start from Chalkbeat.org:

https://www.chalkbeat.org/2019/8/8/21108602/a-new-study-questions-whether-head-start-still-produces-long-run-gains-seen-in-past-research

That’s why a new study comes a surprise. When researchers used similar methods as Deming to look at students born later, mostly between 1986 and 1996, they found that Head Start provided no clear long-term benefits. If anything, the program led to somewhat worse outcomes.

The research offers some of the most up-to-date information about how Head Start affects students years later, and raises questions whether Head Start continues to deliver the positive outcomes it did in the past. In 2016-17, a third of U.S. 3- to 5-year-olds living in poverty were enrolled in the program.

“We’re using methods that have been accepted for a long time … and now we’ve got a bunch of negative results,” said Dylan Lukes, a Harvard graduate student and one of the authors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a poor kid of illiterate or non English speaking parents will have no benefit or even regress if they attend free high quality pre-k?

Bull ! People are so scared of their mediocre kid getting outperformed by poor POC kids aren’t they?

Go read the studies yourself. The kids get a bump for a few years and then it regresses back to the level of the control group. In some cases worse.

In the article below, Vox talks about two studies where the kids in pre-k ended up worse. Vox is by no means a right wing site, and in the article you can feel the author put a liberal spin on the results.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22904345/pre-k-cash-baby-brain-social-science

The evidence shows that high-quality PK, which DC has, does make a difference. It can't be just babysitting. And while it may not help test scores, it does have a long term effect on crime, jobs and economic success.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/05/18/997501946/the-case-for-universal-pre-k-just-got-stronger

Anonymous wrote:It can't be done. Proven time and time again. We should just give up on this idea and go to another plan.

Not everyone has to go to college.

I think there should be more tech and vocational schools. Maybe have 2 tracks in high school. Let those non academic kids learn a trade.

Anonymous wrote:So a poor kid of illiterate or non English speaking parents will have no benefit or even regress if they attend free high quality pre-k?

Bull ! People are so scared of their mediocre kid getting outperformed by poor POC kids aren’t they?

Go read the studies yourself. The kids get a bump for a few years and then it regresses back to the level of the control group. In some cases worse.

In the article below, Vox talks about two studies where the kids in pre-k ended up worse. Vox is by no means a right wing site, and in the article you can feel the author put a liberal spin on the results.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22904345/pre-k-cash-baby-brain-social-science