I am a huge fan of a sliding fee scale for Quality Preschool programs, and the concept that a child's first 5 years are most important. This means that tax payers pickup more of the bill for lower income households.
Here is some information regarding a Washington DC Program. It sounds like they are embedding it in the Public Schools and Picking up the tab for everyone, both of which I disagree with.
Here is some information regarding a Washington DC Program. It sounds like they are embedding it in the Public Schools and Picking up the tab for everyone, both of which I disagree with.
11 comments:
Other than that it is unfair that some get charged more than others, I would agree with you.
The system in Mississippi was that those who could afford pre-K (and K) got it and those who couldn't went to the church (free or very low cost) or did without. Very "not fair" but at least it offered a choice. I much prefer the private scholarship route and the private alternatives, if they are available.
Back to your dream world where there are enough generous caring donors to meet the needs of the unfortunate and low income... :-)
I am fine using a sliding fee scale to ensure the poor kids are getting the same early childhood education as the rich kids already do.
It's a dream world to believe that the public schools that cannot educate kids K-12 can suddenly become great by having them E-12.
And we all pay for K-12. If we all paid for E-12 instead, that might be "fair," or at least as fair as we are doing now. But to say "everybody has to buy pre-K for their kid but we'll pay for some and not others" strikes me as grossly unfair.
MN has, I think, a good system thanks to Republicans. The State offers scholarships for private pre-K to those in need, and lets anybody else buy theirs. Not perfect, but a lot more effective IMHO.
Let's go back to basics:
Science of Early Childhood Development
Poverty and the Developing Brain
Your Brain on Poverty
As for "financial fairness" to the Parent(s)… I really do not care...
My focus is the well being of the children.
We may not be allowed to stop unqualified irresponsible and/or impoverished people from making babies.
However we can ensure that those children have the same early education opportunities as the lucky kids like mine. And as noted above, age 5 is far too late to start.
In case we picked up any new readers.
G2A How to Win the War on Poverty
And I really don't care nor want to argue that educating disadvantaged kids is more difficult and more costly than (/some/ ways) it is being done now.
And if you care about "equal opportunities" then the devil is in the details. And if you want the government to do it, there is a fundamental and political need to make it "fair" to everybody. First of all, pre-K needs to be voluntary. Some kids are ready and will benefit; others are not and will not. Once the parent makes that choice, government should make sure the means are available so the parent can exercise that choice. Gee, just like they should do for K-12. }:->
Source please...
"it is being done now"
Acts of the legislature, 2017, 2018, 2019. Established "scholarships" (would have been called vouchers but we all know that word is poisonous) for Pre-K students.
The Governor wanted more money for pre-K, but restricted to public schools. Republicans agreed to the more money, but only in the form of scholarships.
Agreed "needs based" scholarships are excellent.
MDE Scholarships
Post a Comment