Shame on MTG! Cold soup has enough marketing problems as it is! Gazpacho is lovely, and we should all try it.
How about Pre- K helped single parents like me go to work!?! Also, Pre-K helps kids become more socially and emotionally aware. But y’all supported the disastrous No Child Left Behind so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Maybe so…
Shame on MTG! Cold soup has enough marketing problems as it is! Gazpacho is lovely, and we should all try it.
How about Pre- K helped single parents like me go to work!?! Also, Pre-K helps kids become more socially and emotionally aware. But y’all supported the disastrous No Child Left Behind so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Maybe somethings can’t be tested for properly, and we have to look at the big picture.
They're also bettered prepared to function in the school setting. In my son's K class 3 years ago, you could tell who had been to pre-K and who had not based on their classroom behavior
As was pointed out at Freddie's place, "No less a hardass than Charles Murray pointed out that preschool would be a great way to help poor kids stay in a warm, safe, place and should be funded on that basis."
Pre-K isn't what gives kids a warm, safe place to say while their parents are at work. Any minimally competent daycare would do that. Pre-K sinks a lot of cost into developing curricula that are supposed to give kids a head start. If the curricula don't, actually, that cost is wasted. Here's what's in Mona's article:
"many families, particularly single-parent families, cannot afford to have a parent stay home to care for young kids. That’s why direct subsidies to parents make much more sense than subsidizing universal pre-K. Let the parents decide how to spend the stipend. If they prefer to work and place the child or children in daycare or pre-K (and there really isn’t much of a distinction), they can make that choice."
For as much time as the Bulwark spends talking about the bad political optics of so many Democratic positions, I'm left scratching my head over the fact that this idea of direct subsidies to parents keeps getting promoted here. If the child tax credit were made permanent, it would be incredibly easy (and probably effective) for bad faith Republicans to trot out the welfare queen trope.
Also, notably absent from Mona's piece is any mention of the child tax credit being made permanent in Build Back Better. If the bill were to pass (long shot I know) I hope that Mona is prepared to not simply criticize the childcare/pre-K funding, but to also sing the praises of the child tax credit, and to defend poor Black single mothers who choose to stay home and care for their children, because they will end up in the political crosshairs.
I think what Mona (and others NR contribs and alumni who are capable of looking in a mirror) knows is that there's no guarantee it *would* be incredibly easy and effective for bad faith Republicans to trot out the welfare queen trope once it's obvious plenty of white, "Real American" parents are benefiting, too.
After all, the response to KDW's reporting on the similarities between America's "heartland" and "urban" poor was thermonuclear denial. Break down that denial (which I think is what KDW was trying to do), and Republican voters must realize how much of the "tough love" rhetoric they're used to isn't. Isn't love, that is, as they recognize when it's directed their way.
What if the denial's unbreakable? We have evidence it might be. In that case, the divisive absurdity of Republican rhetoric sorting people who use *identical* social services into "deserving" and "undeserving" based on race alone rears its ugly head.
On the other hand, there's evidence that government benefits that differ by factors correlating with race and class is part of what drives racism and classism. For example if homeowners get a benefit after recent history when government promoted homeownership as a civic good — and subsidized it for whites... well, this actually happened:
I hope you're right, but I'm extremely doubtful. Look at all the folks who get their health care through ACA subsidies, branded with their state's exchange, who nonetheless vehemently hate Obamacare. There's a long history of whites feeling that they deserve government benefits but that blacks do not.
Right. Throughout US history, much of this has been enabled by blacks and whites typically getting different benefits, so that whites could tell themselves *their* benefits weren't really benefits, "properly understood". This is obviously harder to do with a widespread benefit applying to races equally, but in the Kraken world we live in, clearly not impossible.
I do cut Americans railing against our system of medical care payment, Obamacare or not, some slack. The stuff that makes American medical payment so crazy, like laws favoring employer-based plans, is also stuff that middle-class Americans are used to by now, and, as the saying goes, always keep ahold of Nurse for fear of finding something worse. People want a scapegoat for how much this sucks, even now, so of course if they lean that way, "Obamacare!" is tempting.
And I’m saying this data is one-sided towards what is being measured. You are measuring for hard data about knowledge/literacy. How about a child’e emotional/social intelligence? How about preparation for being school, away from home? How much money are we really dumping into this? Is this seriously a drain on the education budget? If that’s so, it speaks much louder to our priorities as a nation that we have to argue about giving children a head start.
I am not the one measuring. But the people who do measure do measure factors associated with social and emotional development, such as avoidance of criminality. Mona's piece mentioned this, citing "higher rates of disciplinary problems" for the pre-K group in the Vanderbilt followup and also:
"in Canada’s Quebec province, the adoption of universal pre-K in 1997 led to serious negative outcomes when the kids reached adolescence. Teenagers who had been placed in daycare showed marked increases in anxiety, aggression, and dissatisfaction with life compared with those who had spent their early years in parental or other care. Even more worrying was the sharp increase in criminal activity"
I am a big believer in social-emotional learning, after having parents who were themselves too academics-only focused. But precisely because the social-emotional component of learning is important, daycare that does *not* make a pretense of academics, but instead focuses on the basics of giving kids a safe space (which includes enforcing basic social rules like no hitting), might be more feasible if the goal is to have programs for everyone, including the kids who aren't a disciplinary fit for intensive pre-K programs.
(My own kid, prone to act out due to a speech impediment, was not a fit for the tony preschools around us at first. Some kids aren't, and not necessarily "those people's" kids, either.)
Shame on MTG! Cold soup has enough marketing problems as it is! Gazpacho is lovely, and we should all try it.
How about Pre- K helped single parents like me go to work!?! Also, Pre-K helps kids become more socially and emotionally aware. But y’all supported the disastrous No Child Left Behind so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Maybe somethings can’t be tested for properly, and we have to look at the big picture.
They're also bettered prepared to function in the school setting. In my son's K class 3 years ago, you could tell who had been to pre-K and who had not based on their classroom behavior
As was pointed out at Freddie's place, "No less a hardass than Charles Murray pointed out that preschool would be a great way to help poor kids stay in a warm, safe, place and should be funded on that basis."
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/pre-k-research-is-mixed-running-to/comments
https://www.aei.org/articles/the-shaky-science-behind-obamas-universal-pre-k/
Pre-K isn't what gives kids a warm, safe place to say while their parents are at work. Any minimally competent daycare would do that. Pre-K sinks a lot of cost into developing curricula that are supposed to give kids a head start. If the curricula don't, actually, that cost is wasted. Here's what's in Mona's article:
"many families, particularly single-parent families, cannot afford to have a parent stay home to care for young kids. That’s why direct subsidies to parents make much more sense than subsidizing universal pre-K. Let the parents decide how to spend the stipend. If they prefer to work and place the child or children in daycare or pre-K (and there really isn’t much of a distinction), they can make that choice."
For as much time as the Bulwark spends talking about the bad political optics of so many Democratic positions, I'm left scratching my head over the fact that this idea of direct subsidies to parents keeps getting promoted here. If the child tax credit were made permanent, it would be incredibly easy (and probably effective) for bad faith Republicans to trot out the welfare queen trope.
Also, notably absent from Mona's piece is any mention of the child tax credit being made permanent in Build Back Better. If the bill were to pass (long shot I know) I hope that Mona is prepared to not simply criticize the childcare/pre-K funding, but to also sing the praises of the child tax credit, and to defend poor Black single mothers who choose to stay home and care for their children, because they will end up in the political crosshairs.
I think what Mona (and others NR contribs and alumni who are capable of looking in a mirror) knows is that there's no guarantee it *would* be incredibly easy and effective for bad faith Republicans to trot out the welfare queen trope once it's obvious plenty of white, "Real American" parents are benefiting, too.
After all, the response to KDW's reporting on the similarities between America's "heartland" and "urban" poor was thermonuclear denial. Break down that denial (which I think is what KDW was trying to do), and Republican voters must realize how much of the "tough love" rhetoric they're used to isn't. Isn't love, that is, as they recognize when it's directed their way.
What if the denial's unbreakable? We have evidence it might be. In that case, the divisive absurdity of Republican rhetoric sorting people who use *identical* social services into "deserving" and "undeserving" based on race alone rears its ugly head.
On the other hand, there's evidence that government benefits that differ by factors correlating with race and class is part of what drives racism and classism. For example if homeowners get a benefit after recent history when government promoted homeownership as a civic good — and subsidized it for whites... well, this actually happened:
https://modelcitizen.substack.com/p/does-zoning-cause-racism-does-negative
I hope you're right, but I'm extremely doubtful. Look at all the folks who get their health care through ACA subsidies, branded with their state's exchange, who nonetheless vehemently hate Obamacare. There's a long history of whites feeling that they deserve government benefits but that blacks do not.
Right. Throughout US history, much of this has been enabled by blacks and whites typically getting different benefits, so that whites could tell themselves *their* benefits weren't really benefits, "properly understood". This is obviously harder to do with a widespread benefit applying to races equally, but in the Kraken world we live in, clearly not impossible.
I do cut Americans railing against our system of medical care payment, Obamacare or not, some slack. The stuff that makes American medical payment so crazy, like laws favoring employer-based plans, is also stuff that middle-class Americans are used to by now, and, as the saying goes, always keep ahold of Nurse for fear of finding something worse. People want a scapegoat for how much this sucks, even now, so of course if they lean that way, "Obamacare!" is tempting.
And I’m saying this data is one-sided towards what is being measured. You are measuring for hard data about knowledge/literacy. How about a child’e emotional/social intelligence? How about preparation for being school, away from home? How much money are we really dumping into this? Is this seriously a drain on the education budget? If that’s so, it speaks much louder to our priorities as a nation that we have to argue about giving children a head start.
I am not the one measuring. But the people who do measure do measure factors associated with social and emotional development, such as avoidance of criminality. Mona's piece mentioned this, citing "higher rates of disciplinary problems" for the pre-K group in the Vanderbilt followup and also:
"in Canada’s Quebec province, the adoption of universal pre-K in 1997 led to serious negative outcomes when the kids reached adolescence. Teenagers who had been placed in daycare showed marked increases in anxiety, aggression, and dissatisfaction with life compared with those who had spent their early years in parental or other care. Even more worrying was the sharp increase in criminal activity"
I am a big believer in social-emotional learning, after having parents who were themselves too academics-only focused. But precisely because the social-emotional component of learning is important, daycare that does *not* make a pretense of academics, but instead focuses on the basics of giving kids a safe space (which includes enforcing basic social rules like no hitting), might be more feasible if the goal is to have programs for everyone, including the kids who aren't a disciplinary fit for intensive pre-K programs.
(My own kid, prone to act out due to a speech impediment, was not a fit for the tony preschools around us at first. Some kids aren't, and not necessarily "those people's" kids, either.)