Biden to Propose Universal Pre-K for 3 & 4 y/os

[Fenixgoon]

Biden set to announce $200 billion for universal pre-K in sweeping new proposal

President Joe Biden is set to announce $200 billion in education funding as part of his sweeping spending package he will unveil prior to his prime-time address to a joint session of Congress, according to a White House official.

www.cnn.com

That's a pretty damn big deal. Access to early childhood education is a huge determining factor in livelihood/outcomes.

Of course, it's just a proposal. It's up to congress to actually pass the legislation.

 

[MtnMan]

It is a big deal, and is essential to not turning out another generation of knuckle dragging idiots that we see fucking up everything today.

My daughter has her Masters in Pre-K education, has run centers, and now chairs the early childhood education department (teach the teachers) at a nearby college. She is passionate about how important this is.

 

[dank69]

What a monster. Impeach now, before it's too late.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Not sure if it's a texas thing or even just at the local level, but we have pre-k for 4 year olds.

Real significant change would be universal daycare.

 

[Wreckem]

Not sure if it's a texas thing or even just at the local level, but we have pre-k for 4 year olds.

Real significant change would be universal daycare.

Texas does not have universal free pre k. It’s only for low income or military families. Everyone else has to pay.

 

[UNCjigga]

Not sure if it's a texas thing or even just at the local level, but we have pre-k for 4 year olds.

Real significant change would be universal daycare.

Universal daycare would be awesome. Hell, I was just thrilled they upped the Dependent Care Account limit from $5k to $10.5K this year.

I did universal Pre-K in Canada nearly 40 years ago (there it was called Jr. Kindergarten vs. Sr. Kindergarten.) Then again, I was also born under universal healthcare (albeit a provincial system before there was a national system.) Hilarious how behind this country is compared to other developed countries, considering the tremendous wealth generated here.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Texas does not have universal free pre k. It’s only for low income or military families. Everyone else has to pay.

Won't someone think of the rich people!? Hehe, it also covers kids that are behind what they are expected to be able to do at age 4.

But yeah I mean I agree should just have it for everyone. Tuition I think was 2700 last I looked, which is certainly better than daycare I figure.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Universal daycare would be awesome. Hell, I was just thrilled they upped the Dependent Care Account limit from $5k to $10.5K this year.

I did universal Pre-K in Canada nearly 40 years ago (there it was called Jr. Kindergarten vs. Sr. Kindergarten.) Then again, I was also born under universal healthcare (albeit a provincial system before there was a national system.) Hilarious how behind this country is compared to other developed countries, considering the tremendous wealth generated here.

There is definitely a severe problem with our society where there is little means for the middle and upper class to reproduce, but absolutely tons for the lower class. I can't say if universal daycare will help or hurt that.

 

[Maxima1]

It is a big deal, and is essential to not turning out another generation of knuckle dragging idiots that we see fucking up everything today.

My daughter has her Masters in Pre-K education, has run centers, and now chairs the early childhood education department (teach the teachers) at a nearby college. She is passionate about how important this is.

The advantage doesn't even stay past elementary. Redshirting advantage stays around until like 8th grade for comparison.

Joe Biden's plan for universal preschool forgets key to children's success: Parents.

Preschool attendance is voluntary. That means only children with motivated, engaged parents attend preschool to begin with.

www.usatoday.com

In both studies, parents tried to enroll their children in a preschool program that didn’t have enough spaces for all applicants. Researchers randomly admitted some children to the program, while the others did not get in. That means the children in the “preschool” and “nonpreschool” groups all had parents who demonstrated the same level of motivation and engagement at the outset.

Both studies found the same thing: Children who attended preschool performed better on achievement tests at the end of the preschool year. But over the kindergarten year, children who had not attended caught up to those who had. And by second and third grades, children who had not gone to preschool did the same or better than those who had.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The advantage doesn't even stay past elementary. Redshirting advantage stays around until like 8th grade for comparison.

Joe Biden's plan for universal preschool forgets key to children's success: Parents.

Preschool attendance is voluntary. That means only children with motivated, engaged parents attend preschool to begin with.

www.usatoday.com

In both studies, parents tried to enroll their children in a preschool program that didn’t have enough spaces for all applicants. Researchers randomly admitted some children to the program, while the others did not get in. That means the children in the “preschool” and “nonpreschool” groups all had parents who demonstrated the same level of motivation and engagement at the outset.

Both studies found the same thing: Children who attended preschool performed better on achievement tests at the end of the preschool year. But over the kindergarten year, children who had not attended caught up to those who had. And by second and third grades, children who had not gone to preschool did the same or better than those who had.

This, also.

It isn't some kind of leg up in life. That's just what you want to believe is true just because rich people put their kids in learning the moment they give birth.

At the end of the day, it's just daycare.

 

[MrSquished]

Probably a way for Biden to turn them into veganized burger hating communists

 

[Maxima1]

This, also.

It isn't some kind of leg up in life. That's just what you want to believe is true just because rich people put their kids in learning the moment they give birth.

At the end of the day, it's just daycare.

Haha, not how they see it. If it goes universal, there is going to be a big push to more than double compensation of preschool teachers so they are on par with kindergarten teachers.

 

[Fenixgoon]

There is definitely a severe problem with our society where there is little means for the middle and upper class to reproduce, but absolutely tons for the lower class. I can't say if universal daycare will help or hurt that.

Please explain how class dictates anyone's ability to procreate.

If anything, wealth gives options, which then usually means people delay children. You see this across the world where birth rates drop with increasing wealth.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Good for biden and the country. Focus more on education and catching learning disabilities early on instead of pushing them along.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Please explain how class dictates anyone's ability to procreate.

If anything, wealth gives options, which then usually means people delay children. You see this across the world where birth rates drop with increasing wealth.

You're kidding, right? Having children is infinitely beneficial to lower-class individuals - because any and all subsidies, incentives, tax benefits, etc... increases eligibility substantially.

Obvious ones being - Increase in SNAP, Increase in TANF, subsidized housing - In addition to other federal/local programs that help subsidize energy/utility bills, cell phone bills, and internet/cable bills. Tax benefits include: Child Tax Credit, and especially the Earned Income Tax Credit disproportionately benefits the lower class. See the picture below that shows eligibility for the EITC and realize the degree to which a person are royally fucked if they start making slightly more and then their benefits are cut across the board.



These are just off the top of my head - I'm sure there are plenty of other "programs" such as free-school lunch programs, free/subsidized daycare and pre-k, etc.. . Next is how we disproportionately allow student loans for families that are broke - so there is an obvious expectation for anyone who makes any decent amount of money to somehow save up $50k+ for their kids to be able to attend college.

The overwhelming majority of these programs are basically 100% eliminated by the time someone reaches any reasonable amount lower-middle class household income - say - 30-50k. It's absurd to have these levels of glass-ceilings above people's heads, because no one wants to come out of them and take on all of those items I mentioned.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You're kidding, right? Having children is infinitely beneficial to lower-class individuals - because any and all subsidies, incentives, tax benefits, etc... increases eligibility substantially.

Obvious ones being - Increase in SNAP, Increase in TANF, subsidized housing - In addition to other federal/local programs that help subsidize energy/utility bills, cell phone bills, and internet/cable bills. Tax benefits include: Child Tax Credit, and especially the Earned Income Tax Credit disproportionately benefits the lower class. See the picture below that shows eligibility for the EITC and realize the degree to which a person are royally fucked if they start making slightly more and then their benefits are cut across the board.
View attachment 43731


These are just off the top of my head - I'm sure there are plenty of other "programs" such as free-school lunch programs, free/subsidized daycare and pre-k, etc.. . Next is how we disproportionately allow student loans for families that are broke - so there is an obvious expectation for anyone who makes any decent amount of money to somehow save up $50k+ for their kids to be able to attend college.

The overwhelming majority of these programs are basically 100% eliminated by the time someone reaches any reasonable amount lower-middle class household income - say - 30-50k. It's absurd to have these levels of glass-ceilings above people's heads, because no one wants to come out of them and take on all of those items I mentioned.

I have never heard anyone who seriously thinks that having more children will help them out in a modern world. Simply put all those extra subsidies, incentives, and tax benefits don't even come close to making up for the cost of an extra child.
The real reason poor people have more children is because
1) they tend to be poor planners. Hard to think about the future when you are struggling with the present.
2) fucking is free entertainment.
3) people are truly bad at birth control methods. Both understanding them and implementing them appropriately. This is largely because we give them next to no education on it.

 

[Fenixgoon]

You're kidding, right? Having children is infinitely beneficial to lower-class individuals - because any and all subsidies, incentives, tax benefits, etc... increases eligibility substantially.

Obvious ones being - Increase in SNAP, Increase in TANF, subsidized housing - In addition to other federal/local programs that help subsidize energy/utility bills, cell phone bills, and internet/cable bills. Tax benefits include: Child Tax Credit, and especially the Earned Income Tax Credit disproportionately benefits the lower class. See the picture below that shows eligibility for the EITC and realize the degree to which a person are royally fucked if they start making slightly more and then their benefits are cut across the board.
View attachment 43731


These are just off the top of my head - I'm sure there are plenty of other "programs" such as free-school lunch programs, free/subsidized daycare and pre-k, etc.. . Next is how we disproportionately allow student loans for families that are broke - so there is an obvious expectation for anyone who makes any decent amount of money to somehow save up $50k+ for their kids to be able to attend college.

The overwhelming majority of these programs are basically 100% eliminated by the time someone reaches any reasonable amount lower-middle class household income - say - 30-50k. It's absurd to have these levels of glass-ceilings above people's heads, because no one wants to come out of them and take on all of those items I mentioned.

1) birth rates vs GDP/PPP - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
Globally, birth rates fall with increasing wealth. The same holds true within the US - look at birth rate vs income

Birth rate by family income in the U.S. 2021| Statista

In 2021, the birth rate in the United States was highest in families that had under 10,000 U.S.

www.statista.com

(Interestingly, birth rates appear to scale with mother's education)

Birth rate by educational attainment of mother U.S. 2023| Statista

In 2023, 55 children were born per 1,000 women who held a Bachelor's degree and 61 children were born per 1,000 women with a graduate or professional degree in the United States.

www.statista.com

If middle and upper classes didn't have the financial means for children, you should see a bimodal distribution in birth rates (the very poor and very wealthy), but that's not what happens.

2) the average cost of a child is over 200k from 0-17

The Cost of Raising a Child

USDA recently issued Expenditures on Children by Families, 2015. This report is also known as “The Cost of Raising a Child.” USDA has been tracking the cost of raising a child since 1960 and this analysis examines expenses by age of child, household income, budgetary component, and region of the...

www.usda.gov

Let's call it 10k/year.l to keep it simple... Do those credits make up for that? Sure doesn't look like it, especially if you have multiple kids.

So do you have any data (not anecdotes) that indicates that poor people have children specifically to maintain their tax credit status?

 

[mindless1]

Biden set to announce $200 billion for universal pre-K in sweeping new proposal

President Joe Biden is set to announce $200 billion in education funding as part of his sweeping spending package he will unveil prior to his prime-time address to a joint session of Congress, according to a White House official.

www.cnn.com

That's a pretty damn big deal. Access to early childhood education is a huge determining factor in livelihood/outcomes.

Only when you contrast those who got an inferior education with those who didn't.

Give everyone the best education possible, and it costs a premium to churn out self-entitled brats while menial work still needs done. Everyone wants to be a rock star but if everyone tries to climb that mountain, much time and resources are wasted.

Certainly education helps overall but the goal should be less expensive higher education with a stronger focus on funding for in-demand skills, so those participants really are entitled because they made a good career choice, trying to fill the needs of society. Some will say the market does this already, but there is a great lag with tech and society in general, rapidly evolving.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

1) birth rates vs GDP/PPP - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
Globally, birth rates fall with increasing wealth. The same holds true within the US - look at birth rate vs income

Birth rate by family income in the U.S. 2021| Statista

In 2021, the birth rate in the United States was highest in families that had under 10,000 U.S.

www.statista.com

(Interestingly, birth rates appear to scale with mother's education)

Birth rate by educational attainment of mother U.S. 2023| Statista

In 2023, 55 children were born per 1,000 women who held a Bachelor's degree and 61 children were born per 1,000 women with a graduate or professional degree in the United States.

www.statista.com

If middle and upper classes didn't have the financial means for children, you should see a bimodal distribution in birth rates (the very poor and very wealthy), but that's not what happens.

2) the average cost of a child is over 200k from 0-17

The Cost of Raising a Child

USDA recently issued Expenditures on Children by Families, 2015. This report is also known as “The Cost of Raising a Child.” USDA has been tracking the cost of raising a child since 1960 and this analysis examines expenses by age of child, household income, budgetary component, and region of the...

www.usda.gov

Let's call it 10k/year.l to keep it simple... Do those credits make up for that? Sure doesn't look like it, especially if you have multiple kids.

So do you have any data (not anecdotes) that indicates that poor people have children specifically to maintain their tax credit status?

Congrats - you completely strawmanned - brought up unrelated and unpresented things - and attacked that instead of what I said. Try again without your 5th-grade level approach.

If middle and upper classes didn't have the financial means for children, you should see a bimodal distribution in birth rates (the very poor and very wealthy), but that's not what happens.

What does this have anything to do with what I stated that having a child disproportionately benefits the lower class?

The answer is nothing. Nothing about this refutes what I said.

Since you like graphs, here is the one you posted. This shows that the lower class reproduce far more than the middle and upper class. Your point that the birth rate amongst rich doesn't increase doesn't at all refute what I stated, it's yet another strawman. In fact, it perfectly coincides with my point below on your 2nd point - the costs of having a child isn't a simple calculation, it scales with income.

2) the average cost of a child is over 200k from 0-17

Do you read what you type? This has nothing to do with benefits. This has nothing to do with poor people. This doesn't take into account any of the benefits that I mentioned.

If you read it - you would also see the part where the cost scales with income - so you have absolutely zero points here in refuting what I said - nor does it take into account the benefits I mention.

We did the analysis by household income level, age of the child, and region of residence. Not surprising, the higher a family’s income the more was spent on a child, particularly for child care/education and miscellaneous expenses.

SO - Do YOU have any data (not unrelated bullshit) to my original points of the glass-ceiling effect and how beneficial children are to lower-income?

 

[thilanliyan]

SO - Do YOU have any data (not unrelated bullshit) to my original points of the glass-ceiling effect and how beneficial children are to lower-income?

You're saying poorer people have more children to keep themselves in the "lower" class for tax benefits?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You're saying poorer people have children to keep themselves in the "lower" class for tax benefits?

His thinly veiled welfare queen argument is showing.

 

[UNCjigga]

Congrats - you completely strawmanned - brought up unrelated and unpresented things - and attacked that instead of what I said. Try again without your 5th-grade level approach.





What does this have anything to do with what I stated that having a child disproportionately benefits the lower class?

The answer is nothing. Nothing about this refutes what I said.

Since you like graphs, here is the one you posted. This shows that the lower class reproduce far more than the middle and upper class. Your point that the birth rate amongst rich doesn't increase doesn't at all refute what I stated, it's yet another strawman. In fact, it perfectly coincides with my point below on your 2nd point - the costs of having a child isn't a simple calculation, it scales with income.
View attachment 43737





Do you read what you type? This has nothing to do with benefits. This has nothing to do with poor people. This doesn't take into account any of the benefits that I mentioned.

If you read it - you would also see the part where the cost scales with income - so you have absolutely zero points here in refuting what I said - nor does it take into account the benefits I mention.






SO - Do YOU have any data (not unrelated bullshit) to my original points of the glass-ceiling effect and how beneficial children are to lower-income?

I don’t think you understand cause/effect of your so-called “glass ceiling effect”. People with means who are phased-out of child tax credits are not forgoing children because they can’t afford them without the credits. They are forgoing children as a result of several choices they’ve made that prioritized income and lifestyle over procreation. People that did well in school and achieved higher education are more likely to practice family planning—birth control etc. This allows them to progress further in their careers, marry spouses who also work, and delay starting families until well into their late thirties (hell even later with frozen eggs/IVF!) Along the way, some may progress to upper management and decide against children. Or, they’ll focus their free time on travel, hobbies, volunteering, serving on boards etc.—and decide against having kids. These are all choices that higher income affords. Higher income doesn’t “limit” then the same way lower income families would be limited without tax credits.

 

[Zorba]

Not sure if it's a texas thing or even just at the local level, but we have pre-k for 4 year olds.

Real significant change would be universal daycare.

At least some districts in Oklahoma have Pre-K, I think all districts do, but even my district which is the best in the state and probably the best funded, you have to enter a lottery to get in. Although, the capacity has gone up a lot in recent years.

Because of COVID my daughter did private Pre-K this year. She just turned five and can do very basic reading, can do basic math, count to any number, etc. Some of her friends that didn't do Pre-K can't count to 10 or do their ABCs, things she's been doing since 2. It is insane the difference in kids that have had life time early education and especially pre-K vs not. I'd really like for her to skip kindergarten next year because I don't want her held back by all the kids that have never done any education, but my wife wants her to be able to read war and peace before we'd request a skip.

 

[Zorba]

The advantage doesn't even stay past elementary. Redshirting advantage stays around until like 8th grade for comparison.

Joe Biden's plan for universal preschool forgets key to children's success: Parents.

Preschool attendance is voluntary. That means only children with motivated, engaged parents attend preschool to begin with.

www.usatoday.com

In both studies, parents tried to enroll their children in a preschool program that didn’t have enough spaces for all applicants. Researchers randomly admitted some children to the program, while the others did not get in. That means the children in the “preschool” and “nonpreschool” groups all had parents who demonstrated the same level of motivation and engagement at the outset.

Both studies found the same thing: Children who attended preschool performed better on achievement tests at the end of the preschool year. But over the kindergarten year, children who had not attended caught up to those who had. And by second and third grades, children who had not gone to preschool did the same or better than those who had.

Nothing to do with the advanced kids being held back by the non-advanced kids... It's hard to teach some kids base 10, multiple digit operations, while others in the class can't count to 20.

It's also a very big claim by one paper published in a little known journal, where they make the claims that Pre-K actually made kids less successful in school. I'd like to see some more evidence before I start believing that keeping them home and keeping them dumb is the best method for success. It's also mute on whether the control group attended Pre-K privately.

Also: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-enterprise-institute/

 

[thilanliyan]

but my wife wants her to be able to read war and peace before we'd request a skip.

That might take a while