"Arch, you don't know. I know. Listen to me!"
Owl_Eagle
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
it was probably sarcasm)
Posted on 08/17/2005 11:10:06 AM PDT by homewithkids
WHILE ALL EYES are trained on the political theater surrounding the November special election, the real showstopper may come from an initiative on the ballot in June. It's called the "Preschool for All Act," championed by children's advocate Rob Reiner. If passed, it will provide every 4-year-old in California with an opportunity for one year of preschool. The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce has taken the unusual step of endorsing the proposal. Some may be surprised by that, especially because the initiative is funded with a tax increase on the wealthiest 1% of Californians. However, although we normally oppose measures with tax increases, we do not do so monolithically. We examined the benefits, weighed the arguments and concluded that the Preschool for All Act is an important investment in California's economic future.
The chamber's top priority is keeping the Los Angeles economy competitive, both nationally and around the world. To do that, we need an education system that prepares our children to enter the workforce.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Misguided, naive, feel-good initiative on the part of Meathead.
Give them the opportunity to attend, huh? I wonder at what point they will try to make it *mandatory.*
Our school district in San Jose, just closed my kids school because of supposed funding problems.
If we are having funding problems, then we certainly don't need to provide preschool.
Then I can also see the school telling parents of 4 year olds that they have to send their kids to school or they are truant.
Not to mention that I think this is a total waste of my tax dollars. I really don't want my tax dollars going so that 4 year olds can play with playdough, sing songs, and listen to stories.
Is this the Rob Reiner of the U.S.S. Ooral?
Oh, yeah, Meathead, preschool for 4-year-olds is going to have a MAJOR impact on that...
Children need caring parents to choose what is in their best interest, not another government-funded institutionalized school setting that restricts choice and diversity in the name of free education.
Our schools are failing in part due to the large government bureaucracy that has become more important than education.
We do not need more of the same for our 4 year olds.
It is my hope that parents will vote no to this ballot initiative and see it for what it really is: another step towards socialism.
Actually, it's the parents who give a good gosh darn about their kids' futures who send them to preschool. That's why those kids surpass their peers in schooling.
Rob Reiner's utopia is to flood preschools with kids whose parents don't give a tinker's damn about their kids. Thus, the preschools will be quickly reduced to the same level of mediocrity that the public schools "enjoy"...thanks entirely to the touchy-feely f***ed-in-the-head Leftists.
This could be great for Tennessee which has no income tax. Send some of those wealthy this way.
"Arch, you don't know. I know. Listen to me!"
Owl_Eagle
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
My neighbor started sending her daughter to preschool when she was three and it had nothing to do with being concerned about her future, it was because she wanted time to herself.
Why don't we just take all babies directly from the delivery room and send them to school?
We can call it pre-pre school.
Shut up Meathead!
Once again we "soak the rich" so liberals can be seen doing good deeds with the ill gotten gains of "rich" people. Those "rich" people are quite capable of relocating from California. Soak them enough and they will leave. Since they are a relatively small fraction of population, a small number leaving punches a fat hole in the revenue stream. Don't worry about the dream failing. The burden will just be spread to the lower earning peons left behind. It's "for the children", so just suck it up.
We don't give a good gosh darn for our children because we've never sent our children to preschool. And somehow our children do better on Day 1 of kindergarten than all the preschool attendees. And by the end of kindergarten, they remain at the top of their class. Must be genetic. Or something.
My brothers and I did not attend preschool. Hubby and his siblings did not attend preschool. I don't know how any of us has made it in life. We didn't even have universal kindergarten!
In California, it already practically is (which is why this initiative is on the ballot). Twenty years ago you could send an uneducated 5 year old to kindergarten and they'd learn their ABC's, colors, and numbers between singing songs and playing games. If you sent that same kid to kindergarten today he'd be labelled "remedial" and shuffled off into a special class to "catch up" with his peers. In California today, kindergarteners jump straight into learning basic spelling, art, and math skills, and are EXPECTED to know the basics before they walk through the door. If they don't go to preschool, they have to be taught this stuff by their parents.
The problem, of course, is that California has a large population of losers who couldn't be bothered to teach their kids a thing. They don't go over the letters and numbers with them, so the kids are at a disadvantage from day 1 when they enter school. They spend the entire first year trying to learn what their peers all knew at the beginning of the school year, and they often flunk because they haven't had time to learn everything they were supposed to be taught in kindergarten (that's another big change...when I was a kid, it was impossible to fail kindergarten...today nearly 20% fail because they didn't pass their evaluations).
Universal preschool is supposed to fix the stupid parent problem by removing the "burden" from them. Of course, many parents will use it as state funded daycare, and many others STILL won't bother to take them, but the libbies look at it as a step in the right direction.
Personally, as a parent, I think these other parents should just have their butts kicked. What kind of loser can't even be "bothered" to teach their four year old their ABC's?
I think it is a little bit of both with most parents.
My son went to preschool (actually daycare) full-time because I was put on complete bedrest for months while I was pregnant with twins. We were going to pull him out when the twins were 2 months old, but the twins got sick at 6 weeks and almost died. This started years of different therapies for the girls. My son stayed in preschool full-time for months, and then he would go a few times a week. It gave me time to take the twins to different doctors and therapists, and it gave him time to play with other kids. I would have preferred that he was home with me, but the daycare/preschool was a great alternative.
My twins also went to preschool to help with their languange development. They only went a few hours 2 days at first and then up to 3 mornings a week. It was good for them, and it was great for me. It wasn't a lot of time, and I got to run errands. I think them going to preschool was better than me toting them all over the place (grocery store, post office, etc). I also got to have a few dates with my husband. We never had time alone until the twins went into preschool.
I also did not have grandparents or other relatives (or anyone else) to watch my kids. There just were not a lot of people that would watch 3 kids 2 years apart.
I would be very suspicious of anything that "Meathead" is involved in, and especially if it involved children. An attempt at the early indoctrination of children, no doubt. After all, we do want them to grow up to be good little drones, don't we.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.