Here's Your Opportunity To Comment On "Universal Preschool" Proposed By Pres. Obama

[Willow]

I don't think that is what is being said at all. What is being said is that we need HIGHER QUALITY family child care programs that support children's early learning. As an assessor conducting FCCERS, ECERS and ITERS on over 100 programs I can say that there are FAR more poor quality FCCH that are doing significant damage to children than there are high quality programs that offer developmentally appropriate environments and "curriculum".

I also see it being offered as a partnership, whereas the government will assist providers in making quality improvements to their programs. I DO NOT beleive that the government is trying to oust FCC providers or take over their programs.

Slippery slope.

Offer a partnership. Offer passive punishments for not participating in partnership. Require partnership. Hostile complete takeover (a joke, but only sort of).

This has been the natural progression for all of Obama's programs.

[Candy]

I guess im in favor of this because i don't see anything wrong with it. And obama got a second term because more people voted for him, its as simple as that. I agree with person that obama had a load to clean up after bush. I always remind people that yall gave bush 8 years to make a mess so why would you expect Obama to clean it up in 4?

[Willow]

"He was elected a second term because the MAJORITY do support him."


The majority of WHO?

If you break down who actually voted for him it wasn't the majority of people in this country who are working and paying taxes to pay for all of the agendas he pushes.

That's not me being a meanie, that's statistic and fact.

Sure everyone counts as an individual on some level, but is it fair that people who AREN'T paying for these programs should be able to cast a vote that forces *other* people to??

I guess that can be debated but I personally think it's ridiculous.

Add to that, he may have won the electoral college votes but the popular vote was split literally right down the middle. HALF of this country's people did not believe he was fit to run this country..

HALF.

In the grand scheme of all the elections ever held that is a doozy of a number and shows a severe lack of confidence on a vast amount of American's parts.



And yes, everyone knows everything was George Bush's fault, that's why this country is further in debt than it ever has been 4+ years AFTER Obama came in to fix everything

[Country Kids]

I had a current client yesterday let me know her husband and her are going over their budget and see if they can fit my fulltime price into their budget.

This spoke volumes to me as their child currently attends HS and the child seems to really enjoy coming hear for preschool time (the child has come here and there at times), playing with the kids here and overall seems happier here then at HS.

[Willow]

I guess im in favor of this because i don't see anything wrong with it. And obama got a second term because more people voted for him, its as simple as that. I agree with person that obama had a load to clean up after bush. I always remind people that yall gave bush 8 years to make a mess so why would you expect Obama to clean it up in 4?

Maybe because he promised he would?

And along with that promise swore he'd vacate the seat if he couldn't in that amount of time?


Keep in mind that this country isn't ANY better off than it was 4 years ago. Not in regards to unemployment or this countries debt especially. We are still in a war he said he was going to end and more people are living at or under poverty level than ever before.

I'm not sure how you can call a massive back slide any sort of progress at all. If things were THAT bad he should have been able to make some sort of forward movement 4+ years later.

[Candy]

"He was elected a second term because the MAJORITY do support him."


The majority of WHO?

If you break down who actually voted for him it wasn't the majority of people in this country who are working and paying taxes to pay for all of the agendas he pushes.

That's not me being a meanie, that's statistic and fact.

Sure everyone counts as an individual on some level, but is it fair that people who AREN'T paying for these programs should be able to cast a vote that forces *other* people to??

I guess that can be debated but I personally think it's ridiculous.

Add to that, he may have won the electoral college votes but the popular vote was split literally right down the middle. HALF of this country's people did not believe he was fit to run this country..

HALF.

In the grand scheme of all the elections ever held that is a doozy of a number and shows a severe lack of confidence on a vast amount of American's parts.



And yes, everyone knows everything was George Bush's fault, that's why this country is further in debt than it ever has been 4+ years AFTER Obama came in to fix everything

:: Romney's on home state didn't vote for him what does that tell you. And as i recall wasn't Al Gore suppose to win insted of Bush, so how did he become our president? Just sayin not to start a fight i think he won fair.

[Willow]

No, the people pay for it. The government does not.

We don't have money for this. We have a broken public school system so why add to that?!?!

I support early education but I also know there is NO significant proof that children who have early childhood education do any better than the next kid who didn't have it. (with the exception of low income children)

I think that what early childhood aged children need is more face time with their parents, more enriched quality care NOT education.

The money for this would be far better spent if it was for mothers (and fathers) to have longer maternity leaves, more education on health, safety and quality parenting skills.

[Willow]

:: Romney's on home state didn't vote for him what does that tell you. And as i recall wasn't Al Gore suppose to win insted of Bush, so how did he become our president? Just sayin not to start a fight i think he won fair.

Oh I'm not arguing Obama won "fair." As in using the broken electoral college system.

But fact is HALF of Americans did not vote for Obama. Popular vote has nothing to do with the electoral college.

[Crystal]

It's money this country doesn't have, to put into a program that's already proven not to work, and even more government intrusion that the vast majority of providers do not want.

Kids need to learn through play when they're toddlers, not be pushed to learn things they should be learning K-2nd/3rd grade. I could teach the kids in my care algebra when they're here *or* I could teach them manners, respect, self care/help skills and how to control their emotions so they can actually do something productive with the algebra they learn someday.

I highly doubt that the government is going to insist we teach children concepts that are not DAP. It will still be about teaching appropriate social skills, self-care and self-regulation. Additionally they will learn basics like colors/shapes/alphabet, etc. BUT, they should be being taught that anyway. Of course it should be in the context of play based experiences, not rote memorization or "dittos", and from what I am seeing as an independent consultant for Head Start, at least here, is that government funded programs ARE practicing this now.....it isn't going to change the way children SHOULD be taught, it is going to weed out the mediocre programs with providers that are in the field for a "paycheck" so that they can stay home with their own children. I agree it is best to stay home with your own children, but if you are caring for other people's children and doing a half-assed job of it, then "you" need to be forced out of the field.

[mom2many]

It's money this country doesn't have, to put into a program that's already proven not to work, and even more government intrusion that the vast majority of providers do not want.

Kids need to learn through play when they're toddlers, not be pushed to learn things they should be learning K-2nd/3rd grade. I could teach the kids in my care algebra when they're here *or* I could teach them manners, respect, self care/help skills and how to control their emotions so they can actually do something productive with the algebra they learn someday.

[Sugar Magnolia]

I don't think that is what is being said at all. What is being said is that we need HIGHER QUALITY family child care programs that support children's early learning. As an assessor conducting FCCERS, ECERS and ITERS on over 100 programs I can say that there are FAR more poor quality FCCH that are doing significant damage to children than there are high quality programs that offer developmentally appropriate environments and "curriculum".

I also see it being offered as a partnership, whereas the government will assist providers in making quality improvements to their programs. I DO NOT beleive that the government is trying to oust FCC providers or take over their programs.

Agree

[Crystal]

No, the people pay for it. The government does not.

We don't have money for this. We have a broken public school system so why add to that?!?!

I support early education but I also know there is NO significant proof that children who have early childhood education do any better than the next kid who didn't have it. (with the exception of low income children) I would argue that, just because there has not been a significant study following children from middle to upper class families who attend preschool does NOT mean that there is not a significant difference in how these children grow up and how they contribute to society as adults. The only difference is that, currently, the government HAS to follow the children they fund preschool for.....they HAVE to show that the dollars they spend on those children to attend preschool makes a difference. They HAVE done that. Now, it is time to see the impact preschool has on ALL children. What is so wrong with that?
I think that what early childhood aged children need is more face time with their parents, more enriched quality care NOT education. Perhaps. I would argue that not ALL children are better off with more face time with their parents and HIGHLY benefit from the time they spend at "preschool". Let's keep in mind that preschool is NOT what it used to be. Even the government, (with all of their studies on children living in poverty) have recognized what DAP is and they are implementing it in head start and state funded preschool programs. The emphasis is on social-emotional development, self-care and self-regualtion so that when they enter "real school" they are prepared to follow directions, get along with peers, negotiate conflict and adequately care for themselves in a world outside of their home

The money for this would be far better spent if it was for mothers (and fathers) to have longer maternity leaves, more education on health, safety and quality parenting skills. We certainly need that. BUT, we also NEED better trained teachers, and we need a program that supports ALL children's growth and development, not just those living in poverty.

I replied in bold above

[Crystal]

"He was elected a second term because the MAJORITY do support him."


The majority of WHO?

If you break down who actually voted for him it wasn't the majority of people in this country who are working and paying taxes to pay for all of the agendas he pushes.

That's not me being a meanie, that's statistic and fact.

Sure everyone counts as an individual on some level, but is it fair that people who AREN'T paying for these programs should be able to cast a vote that forces *other* people to??

I guess that can be debated but I personally think it's ridiculous.

Add to that, he may have won the electoral college votes but the popular vote was split literally right down the middle. HALF of this country's people did not believe he was fit to run this country..

HALF.

In the grand scheme of all the elections ever held that is a doozy of a number and shows a severe lack of confidence on a vast amount of American's parts.



And yes, everyone knows everything was George Bush's fault, that's why this country is further in debt than it ever has been 4+ years AFTER Obama came in to fix everything

To the bolded above. Wow. Just wow.

[nannyde]

No, the people pay for it. The government does not.

We don't have money for this. We have a broken public school system so why add to that?!?!

I support early education but I also know there is NO significant proof that children who have early childhood education do any better than the next kid who didn't have it. (with the exception of low income children)

I think that what early childhood aged children need is more face time with their parents, more enriched quality care NOT education.

The money for this would be far better spent if it was for mothers (and fathers) to have longer maternity leaves, more education on health, safety and quality parenting skills.

With the exception of desperately poor children who have desperately low functioning parents. Translation is the children would do better because they are out of the poor environment for a portion of the day. NOT because the environment is an educational environment but because its better CARE than the home environment.

[Willow]

I highly doubt that the government is going to insist we teach children concepts that are not DAP. It will still be about teaching appropriate social skills, self-care and self-regulation. Additionally they will learn basics like colors/shapes/alphabet, etc. BUT, they should be being taught that anyway. Of course it should be in the context of play based experiences, not rote memorization or "dittos", and from what I am seeing as an independent consultant for Head Start, at least here, is that government funded programs ARE practicing this now.....it isn't going to change the way children SHOULD be taught, it is going to weed out the mediocre programs with providers that are in the field for a "paycheck" so that they can stay home with their own children. I agree it is best to stay home with your own children, but if you are caring for other people's children and doing a half-assed job of it, then "you" need to be forced out of the field.

I don't disagree with most of your above, but why is that the governments place to do that though?

It should be up to the parents to make good decisions for their kids. Even if you "force out" the bottom of the barrel daycare providers parents are still going to make poor choices in regards to many other aspects of their childrens lives.

Should the government start regulating many/all other aspects of parenting because parents can't always be trusted to do a perfect job??

Again with the slippery slope......


I like firm boundary lines regarding government intrusion in my life and the lives of my family members. Who a parent chooses to watch their children is their business and their business alone. If they choose someone licensed and accredited great, if they don't, that's no one else's place to criticize or control.

Funny enough the worst daycares I had growing up were centers who were licensed and accredited.

The daycares I learned the best and most in was my unaccredited unlicensed aunts home.