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

[MrSquished]

Pre-K is clearly good for kids and also good for many parents. So obviously the GQP will be against it, and so will their dumbfuck base of rube deplorables.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

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?

So it's pretty simple then; if this is true countries with much greater benefit systems than the US (i.e. every other rich country), should see vastly higher birth rates! Especially for poorer people. Scandinavia?! People must have 8 kids each!? Imagine the benefits!

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

Oh, turns out it's not true? How strange! All of scandinavia, and the EU overall is actually LOWER than the USA. And poor, lower educated countries with no benefits have higher birth rates. Well this makes no sense now..

Always amusing how right-wing talking points always forget that the rest of the world exists.

 

[ponyo]

Children are our future and should be taken care of. So I support measures that help children. I much rather see my tax dollars go towards helping them than many other things government waste our tax dollars on.

It's moronic to think poor people have more children for monetary subsidies, tax benefits, and increased welfare payment. Rather it's far more likely poor people have lot of children because they are poor and feels fulfilled and wealthy by having large family. Money is not everything. Money is only one form of wealth in this world. Family is another form of wealth. In a way, large family is the real wealth. It's different wealth and no amount of money in the world can replace or replicate this kind of wealth. It comes from family bond, physical and emotional support, and life experiences you can only get from having a large family. Poor people know they will likely never be rich in conventional sense by having lot of money. But they can be rich in other way like having a large family. And I think this is the reason poor people have lot of children.

 

[digiram]

Huge deal. I got in on early childhood education and turned out ok. Made the same things happen for my kids and they are all quite advanced. Not geniuses, but do really well in school.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So it's pretty simple then; if this is true countries with much greater benefit systems than the US (i.e. every other rich country), should see vastly higher birth rates! Especially for poorer people. Scandinavia?! People must have 8 kids each!? Imagine the benefits!

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

Oh, turns out it's not true? How strange! All of scandinavia, and the EU overall is actually LOWER than the USA. And poor, lower educated countries with no benefits have higher birth rates. Well this makes no sense now..

Always amusing how right-wing talking points always forget that the rest of the world exists.

That's not at all what I was saying lol. You continue to look like a complete idiot.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

There's a lot of reasons. At the low end most of the costs of having children are absorbed by the government, yes, so people can have kids if they want to. At the high end you can just get a nanny and money isn't really a constraint on having them either. In the middle though, you have the government picking up less but you aren't wealthy enough to afford expensive child care and if you stay home it's a big hit to your household income anyway. That's why if you look at the curve it's basically high numbers of kids for the poor, a big dip in the middle, and then increasing fertility at the top.

This is also never going to get better, so we should institute universal daycare/preschool/whatever. As I've mentioned before Baumol's cost disease seems likely to apply in perpetuity here or at least until we have good robot nannies. As the rest of the world gets more efficient we haven't really discovered a way for one person to watch more kids at the same time so productivity there stays the same. This means child care will become disproportionately more expensive than everything else, each and every year, forever. (or until robots)

 

[thilanliyan]

That's not at all what I was saying lol. You continue to look like a complete idiot.

So what ARE you saying then? Because it sounded like you were saying either poorer people have more kids for tax "benefits" OR poorer people have glass ceilings so they have more kids...?

One of those? Something else?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So what ARE you saying then? Because it sounded like you were saying either poorer people have more kids for tax "benefits" OR poorer people have glass ceilings so they have more kids...?

One of those? Something else?

I'm not here to spoon feed you children. If you want to learn in life how to debate worth a shit, then read my post and try not to strawman it with arguments that were never stated.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not here to spoon feed you children. If you want to learn in life how to debate worth a shit, then read my post and try not to strawman it with arguments that were never stated.

Really glad to see you taking a cue from pcgeek here.

'What did you mean?'

'It's a secret.'

 

[thilanliyan]

I'm not here to spoon feed you children. If you want to learn in life how to debate worth a shit, then read my post and try not to strawman it with arguments that were never stated.

I asked because I thought I understood your point, but your subsequent posts responding to others made me think maybe you had a different point than what I had thought.

Clearly others here are also having a similar difficulty fully understanding your point judging by your responses to them.

Is it that difficult to explicitly state your point in one sentence? (instead of calling us children, etc)

 

[dank69]

I asked because I thought I understood your point, but your subsequent posts responding to others made me think maybe you had a different point than what I had thought.

Clearly others here are also having a similar difficulty fully understanding your point judging by your responses to them.

Is it that difficult to explicitly state your point in one sentence? (instead of calling us children, etc)

He hates that the liberal sheep here jump down people's throats when they say stupid things things in opposition to the hive mind. That's why he jumps down people's throats when they disagree with him say stupid things.

 

[Dulanic]

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 was happy to get out of lower middle class. Yeah I lost some of those things but I'm good,I can afford them now. But I don't begrudge those who can't afford them like you.

 

[Maxima1]

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.

Students make the schools. The so-called gaps do not cost a premium to remedy, and are just generally from educational policy being run by some really incompetent people. For example, I had to do effectively two more years of academics because my high school offered no AP and very little college level courses (that had to be paid for but since it wasn't -- it didn't count). And for many of these same schools, senior year tends to be a complete joke with joke electives and study halls that do not count for anything. Diploma with Advanced Regents? Haha, it would have been much better for me to just get GED at 16 and go straight to college.

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.

For some reason, school admin doesn't really see that as a problem. All these lower class sizes for each grade yet little differentiation nor really any interventions to suggest moving up kids a grade even if they were redshirted. A lot of advanced kids are 18 (never got moved up) yet there are also those in calculus that are still just 16.

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.

Redshirting gives a waaaaaay bigger advantage than whether someone did pre-k or not.

Did you know affluent parents do redshirting not because the kid is really behind but they want them to be at the top of the class academically and physically?

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/

I didn't see that part in the article I posted, but what I posted about any advantages fading very early has been well-established.

ERIC - ED562417 - Preventing Preschool Fadeout through Instructional Intervention in Kindergarten and First Grade, Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2015

A substantial literature documents the benefits of early childhood education and formal preschool experiences on children's school readiness, with low-income and otherwise disadvantaged children benefitting the most from these programs. However, these academic benefits often fade out as children...

eric.ed.gov

A substantial literature documents the benefits of early childhood education and formal preschool experiences on children's school readiness, with low-income and otherwise disadvantaged children benefitting the most from these programs. However, these academic benefits often fade out as children age, and most disappear by the end of kindergarten or first grade. The authors suggest one reason for preschool fade-out might be that children's elementary school teachers continue to teach content that children already learned during preschool, thus curtailing academic growth.

 

[sportage]

This is a no brainer for advancement of education, for helping working mothers and their families, and for truly making America GREAT AGAIN (which should be Biden's theme because Biden owns it and deserves it more than you know who). But just wait.... Fox and Mitch McConnell will call it communism or socialism or call it F.... WHY DIDN'T TRUMP THINK OF THIS? You know how Americans can be so easily persuaded to vote and believe in policies that go against their best interest. Lets just wait for a working mom, a single mom, to have some major issue against this because she listens to Sean Hannity. Then.... gripe because she can not afford to work AND pay for daycare. Lets just see exactly how dumb America can be THIS TIME.

 

[sportage]

I got in on early childhood education and turned out ok. Made the same things happen for my kids and they are all quite advanced. Not geniuses, but do really well in school.

Sadly, I never had the opportunity as a child and look at me..... here I am posting BS on some P&L forum.
On the humanity.

 

[Zorba]

Students make the schools. The so-called gaps do not cost a premium to remedy, and are just generally from educational policy being run by some really incompetent people. For example, I had to do effectively two more years of academics because my high school offered no AP and very little college level courses (that had to be paid for but since it wasn't -- it didn't count). And for many of these same schools, senior year tends to be a complete joke with joke electives and study halls that do not count for anything. Diploma with Advanced Regents? Haha, it would have been much better for me to just get GED at 16 and go straight to college.



For some reason, school admin doesn't really see that as a problem. All these lower class sizes for each grade yet little differentiation nor really any interventions to suggest moving up kids a grade even if they were redshirted. A lot of advanced kids are 18 (never got moved up) yet there are also those in calculus that are still just 16.



Redshirting gives a waaaaaay bigger advantage than whether someone did pre-k or not.

Did you know affluent parents do redshirting not because the kid is really behind but they want them to be at the top of the class academically and physically?

As a kid that was bored out of my mind all the way through school, and finally graduated a year early, and got a masters in engineering at 22. The idea of redshirting a capable kid just seems like child abuse to me. Most people I know that have done it, do it for sports competitiveness, not academic competitiveness. I do know parents that held their kids back for truth academic reasons, that's different.

Most kids I know that have been redshirted ended up doing 2 years of Pre-K, they weren't just sitting around at home. It isn't poor kids that get redshirted, though, so any data on improvements for redshirting must include demographic changes. I quickly looked for some real data, but only found bro-science sites. I'll look a little bit harder.

I didn't see that part in the article I posted, but what I posted about any advantages fading very early has been well-established.

ERIC - ED562417 - Preventing Preschool Fadeout through Instructional Intervention in Kindergarten and First Grade, Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2015

A substantial literature documents the benefits of early childhood education and formal preschool experiences on children's school readiness, with low-income and otherwise disadvantaged children benefitting the most from these programs. However, these academic benefits often fade out as children...

eric.ed.gov

A substantial literature documents the benefits of early childhood education and formal preschool experiences on children's school readiness, with low-income and otherwise disadvantaged children benefitting the most from these programs. However, these academic benefits often fade out as children age, and most disappear by the end of kindergarten or first grade. The authors suggest one reason for preschool fade-out might be that children's elementary school teachers continue to teach content that children already learned during preschool, thus curtailing academic growth.

Looks like those authors have the same hypothesis I do. Kids should be grouped by ability, but then the average and below average parents flip out about how their little johnny isn't with the advanced kids. Even the high end private schools around here don't group by ability.

 

[ivwshane]

So what ARE you saying then? Because it sounded like you were saying either poorer people have more kids for tax "benefits" OR poorer people have glass ceilings so they have more kids...?

One of those? Something else?

He doesn’t know what the fuck he’s saying because he’s a fucking moron who can’t counter any argument against his feels. He’s now backtracking on his posts. The guy is a fucking tool and I pray for any child under his care.

 

[Lanyap]

He needs to implement Booker's Baby Bonds for education.