Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 17:59     Subject: New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
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.
Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 17:54     Subject: New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
Anonymous wrote:Ok- does free pre-school make you feel better?


Yes! It does, actually, because it accurately describes what the children are getting that cannot be provided at home: the structure and socialization of school.

FWIW, I am fully in favor of keeping kids home for whatever reason if you can make it work.
Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 17:53     Subject: New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
What are you fighting about? Kids that benefit from preschool or teachers who think it is unfair that a kid gets to go without paying or stay at home moms who do not want their kids going?
Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 17:48     Subject: New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
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.
Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 17:47     Subject: New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
Ok- does free pre-school make you feel better?
Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 17:43     Subject: New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
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!

Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 17:43     Subject: Re:New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
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.
Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 17:41     Subject: New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
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.


It is not daycare. It is not a replacement or substitute for parents who would like to keep their children home. It is school. It was originally called Head Start and was designed to increase school readiness for low-income families. Now it is available to any parent who would like to send their child in DC, including you. If you decide not to enroll your child in one of these programs, you are not entitled to an equivalent handout from the city.

Your willful misuse of the term "subsized daycare" makes you look ignorant and entitled.
Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 17:33     Subject: New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
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
Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 16:47     Subject: New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
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.
Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 16:35     Subject: New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
I can't believe people (dc residents even!) are arguing against free preschool. You fucktards should move some place where you can practice capitalism unfettered by a state - Somalia, say.
Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 16:32     Subject: New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
Anonymous wrote:
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.


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.


Yet you do use roads even though you don't drive- right? Or do you stay inside your house and have nothing delivered to your house using roads? Not the same argument at all.


Do you plan on existing on your own little estate, growing and mining all by yourself every bit of food and fiber and wood and metal? Because in that way the road analogy is similar. Which is to say: you and your children will have to be out in the world interacting with and reliant on kids and people from all economic levels, and the boats of the poor have been absolutely anchored to the muck for the last few years while the yachts of the wealthy sail higher and higher. Let some benefits - like a decent education - accrue to the poorest among us and reap the benefits of a better world.
Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 16:24     Subject: New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:


Actually, (and I'm someone who has no problem paying property taxes, which fund schools) OP does not necessarily have the option of using the service, unless she is lucky enough to lottery in. I'm not aware of many schools who have openings for PS3 or PK4 and you aren't guaranteed a spot, even at your in-bounds school, until Kindergarten.



The point of Universal Pre K 3 in DC is that DCPS provides a spot for EVERY child whose parent wants the child to attend preK 3 or pre K 4. It may not be in their IB school, but there is a spot somewhere. Charter schools provide many of these spots.


DC only offers free preK to lower income "families".

Obama wants the whole country to offer this as well. SOL middle class, pay up your taxes and get your own preK.


Not true. DCPS and Charters who offer PS/PK all offer it for free to all city residents. We are not low income and benefit from it. We don't get free lunch or reduced aftercare, but thats ok. Its great, I'm not going to lie. I work, so DC would be with a care provider anyway. There is absolutely no downside to having him in school.
Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 16:19     Subject: New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:


Actually, (and I'm someone who has no problem paying property taxes, which fund schools) OP does not necessarily have the option of using the service, unless she is lucky enough to lottery in. I'm not aware of many schools who have openings for PS3 or PK4 and you aren't guaranteed a spot, even at your in-bounds school, until Kindergarten.



The point of Universal Pre K 3 in DC is that DCPS provides a spot for EVERY child whose parent wants the child to attend preK 3 or pre K 4. It may not be in their IB school, but there is a spot somewhere. Charter schools provide many of these spots.


DC only offers free preK to lower income "families".

Obama wants the whole country to offer this as well. SOL middle class, pay up your taxes and get your own preK.
Anonymous
Post 09/18/2013 16:17     Subject: Re:New York Times on the miracles of Universal Pre-K in DC
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..


Mo' kids equals mo' bennies!!