Daycare.com Forum
prioritizepre-k 06:03 PM 01-14-2011
Originally Posted by :
Show me. Show me the way. Teach me. Show me any longitudinal study on preschool education and how it results in ANY significant long term difference in the measurable outcomes of kids in reading, math, science, writing, etc. Core academic subjects. Not little bits of some reading scores... but fully in reading, writing, math, social studies, science. Show me how kids who have preschool graduate at a higher rate, have less crimal activity, have higher grades beyond second grade, have less teen pregnancy, have higher gradution rates in college, score higher in any grade level beyond second grade in standardized tests.
Show me how that happens because I can't find it. Show me a study that is not poor kids and disadvantaged kids and show me what preschool does for them. If we are going to put billions of dollars into it then we got to get SOMETHING out of it. Something in the way of EDUCATION.
Until then I will hold steadfast that we need to STOP taking research from poor kids and apply it to the reasoning for early education for the rest of the population.
Show me. Show me the way. Teach me. Show me any longitudinal study on preschool education and how it results in ANY significant long term difference in the measurable outcomes of kids in reading, math, science, writing, etc. Core academic subjects. Not little bits of some reading scores... but fully in reading, writing, math, social studies, science. Show me how kids who have preschool graduate at a higher rate, have less crimal activity, have higher grades beyond second grade, have less teen pregnancy, have higher gradution rates in college, score higher in any grade level beyond second grade in standardized tests.
Show me how that happens because I can't find it. Show me a study that is not poor kids and disadvantaged kids and show me what preschool does for them. If we are going to put billions of dollars into it then we got to get SOMETHING out of it. Something in the way of EDUCATION.
Until then I will hold steadfast that we need to STOP taking research from poor kids and apply it to the reasoning for early education for the rest of the population.
They won't be able to show you. All of the studies advocates base their claims from were small scale studies done on the extremely disadvantaged children. They take the benefits of these small scale programs that were done decades ago and try to apply the benefits to the larger population. The advocates are not representing the entire picture and are cherry picking the benefits. I agree with you and am happy to see there are others who understand it.
To learn more visit www.prioritizepre-k.com
prioritizepre-k 06:25 PM 01-14-2011
Originally Posted by Blackcat31:
Does this count? I have not been reading up on it but I googled it and found this; http://nieer.org/resources/factsheets/13.pdf or http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1116081424.htm
Pew Charitable Trusts are the largest advocates for "universal pre-k" in the nation. For the past 10 years they have spent millions of dollars setting up organizations, conduction research and publicizing their results in an effort to campaign for government funded universal preschool programs. NIEER is one of the organizations set up by PEW and their entire focus is to lobby for government funded preschool. Their studies are hardly objective.Does this count? I have not been reading up on it but I googled it and found this; http://nieer.org/resources/factsheets/13.pdf or http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1116081424.htm
All studies, even those cited by the advocates prove the preschool programs benefit disadvantaged children. These advocates are taking the results and applying them to the larger population. There is NO PROOF that these programs benefit middle or upper class children.
To learn more visit www.prioritizepre-k.com
nannyde 04:54 AM 01-15-2011
Originally Posted by prioritizepre-k:
Pew Charitable Trusts are the largest advocates for "universal pre-k" in the nation. For the past 10 years they have spent millions of dollars setting up organizations, conduction research and publicizing their results in an effort to campaign for government funded universal preschool programs. NIEER is one of the organizations set up by PEW and their entire focus is to lobby for government funded preschool. Their studies are hardly objective.
All studies, even those cited by the advocates prove the preschool programs benefit disadvantaged children. These advocates are taking the results and applying them to the larger population. There is NO PROOF that these programs benefit middle or upper class children.
To learn more visit www.prioritizepre-k.com
I'm glad to see you joined the conversation. I would be even more specific with this: There is NO PROOF that these programs benefit middle or upper class children. and discuss the large lower middle class and the upper middle class. Pew Charitable Trusts are the largest advocates for "universal pre-k" in the nation. For the past 10 years they have spent millions of dollars setting up organizations, conduction research and publicizing their results in an effort to campaign for government funded universal preschool programs. NIEER is one of the organizations set up by PEW and their entire focus is to lobby for government funded preschool. Their studies are hardly objective.
All studies, even those cited by the advocates prove the preschool programs benefit disadvantaged children. These advocates are taking the results and applying them to the larger population. There is NO PROOF that these programs benefit middle or upper class children.
To learn more visit www.prioritizepre-k.com
I looked over your site and thsi article is very good because it focuses on Oklahoma where a lot of TALK about their success is used to bolster the need for UPK. They are a really good example of when the research is taken out of their hands and put into standardized testing that they fail miserably. We have to be cautious with the research and see WHO is funding it and what their agenda is. Standardized testing is a good way to take the emotion out of it and just look at the facts: http://www.prioritizepre-k.com/2010/...hen-it-counts/
and video
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13533552
and for our new Govenor just sworn in yesterday: http://www.prioritizepre-k.com/categ...e-states/iowa/
Can I ask you one thing? Why is it that there is little to no discussion about parental responsibility when it comes to preschool education? I don't mean just paying for preschool but actually DOING preschool with their own children. We seem to miss the mark when it comes to sending the message to parents that THEY can educate their infants, toddlers, and preschool children. If we assume that Home Providers who are statistically not educated as teachers can BE teachers then why not extend that ideology to parents themselves. Free preschool can happen right under your roof. I would love to see public monies going into evening and weekend classes where parents can come to learn how to teach their own children. Now THAT would be money well spent.
prioritizepre-k 06:46 AM 01-15-2011
Originally Posted by nannyde:
I'm glad to see you joined the conversation. I would be even more specific with this: There is NO PROOF that these programs benefit middle or upper class children. and discuss the large lower middle class and the upper middle class.
I looked over your site and thsi article is very good because it focuses on Oklahoma where a lot of TALK about their success is used to bolster the need for UPK. They are a really good example of when the research is taken out of their hands and put into standardized testing that they fail miserably. We have to be cautious with the research and see WHO is funding it and what their agenda is. Standardized testing is a good way to take the emotion out of it and just look at the facts: http://www.prioritizepre-k.com/2010/...hen-it-counts/
and video
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13533552
and for our new Govenor just sworn in yesterday: http://www.prioritizepre-k.com/categ...e-states/iowa/
Can I ask you one thing? Why is it that there is little to no discussion about parental responsibility when it comes to preschool education? I don't mean just paying for preschool but actually DOING preschool with their own children. We seem to miss the mark when it comes to sending the message to parents that THEY can educate their infants, toddlers, and preschool children. If we assume that Home Providers who are statistically not educated as teachers can BE teachers then why not extend that ideology to parents themselves. Free preschool can happen right under your roof. I would love to see public monies going into evening and weekend classes where parents can come to learn how to teach their own children. Now THAT would be money well spent.
I focus on preschool because I am the owner of a preschool. I do believe preschool is beneficial. I do not believe the government are the only one's who can do it well. With that said, yes i believe parents can teach their children the basics too. The only thing homeschooling won't accomplish is all of the social benefits the children receive by being in a classroom with a few of their peers. Taking turns, sharing, not taking too much of the teachers attention. etc. These are important skills they will need as they enter a Kindergarten classroom with 20+ kids.I'm glad to see you joined the conversation. I would be even more specific with this: There is NO PROOF that these programs benefit middle or upper class children. and discuss the large lower middle class and the upper middle class.
I looked over your site and thsi article is very good because it focuses on Oklahoma where a lot of TALK about their success is used to bolster the need for UPK. They are a really good example of when the research is taken out of their hands and put into standardized testing that they fail miserably. We have to be cautious with the research and see WHO is funding it and what their agenda is. Standardized testing is a good way to take the emotion out of it and just look at the facts: http://www.prioritizepre-k.com/2010/...hen-it-counts/
and video
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13533552
and for our new Govenor just sworn in yesterday: http://www.prioritizepre-k.com/categ...e-states/iowa/
Can I ask you one thing? Why is it that there is little to no discussion about parental responsibility when it comes to preschool education? I don't mean just paying for preschool but actually DOING preschool with their own children. We seem to miss the mark when it comes to sending the message to parents that THEY can educate their infants, toddlers, and preschool children. If we assume that Home Providers who are statistically not educated as teachers can BE teachers then why not extend that ideology to parents themselves. Free preschool can happen right under your roof. I would love to see public monies going into evening and weekend classes where parents can come to learn how to teach their own children. Now THAT would be money well spent.
I find if insulting when the advocates say parents can't identify a quality preschool. That is a load of cr-- These advocates do not give parents enough credit and yes they are trying to take kids away from their families at too young an age. The most influential people in a child's life are their parents. This should be celebrated. Our government should not be trying to interfere with the upbringing of our children.
www.prioritizepre-k.com
Unregistered 04:24 PM 11-12-2012
Originally Posted by prioritizepre-k:
I focus on preschool because I am the owner of a preschool. I do believe preschool is beneficial. I do not believe the government are the only one's who can do it well. With that said, yes i believe parents can teach their children the basics too. The only thing homeschooling won't accomplish is all of the social benefits the children receive by being in a classroom with a few of their peers. Taking turns, sharing, not taking too much of the teachers attention. etc. These are important skills they will need as they enter a Kindergarten classroom with 20+ kids.
www.prioritizepre-k.com
Another benefit of preschool (If the Provider/Preschool Teacher are trained in child observation) is that a provider/teacher may know some warning signs of learning disabilities/delays or social problems that parents may not be able to pick up themselves due to either thinking this behavior is typical (because they may not understand development) or not having a diverse enough social environment to measure these domains. Early detection can help parents to get resorces to early childhood intervention to help them get the support they need before they enter the school systems- which may make them be held back if not treated early.I focus on preschool because I am the owner of a preschool. I do believe preschool is beneficial. I do not believe the government are the only one's who can do it well. With that said, yes i believe parents can teach their children the basics too. The only thing homeschooling won't accomplish is all of the social benefits the children receive by being in a classroom with a few of their peers. Taking turns, sharing, not taking too much of the teachers attention. etc. These are important skills they will need as they enter a Kindergarten classroom with 20+ kids.
www.prioritizepre-k.com
QualiTcare 07:09 AM 01-15-2011
Originally Posted by nannyde:
I'm glad to see you joined the conversation. I would be even more specific with this: There is NO PROOF that these programs benefit middle or upper class children. and discuss the large lower middle class and the upper middle class.
I looked over your site and thsi article is very good because it focuses on Oklahoma where a lot of TALK about their success is used to bolster the need for UPK. They are a really good example of when the research is taken out of their hands and put into standardized testing that they fail miserably. We have to be cautious with the research and see WHO is funding it and what their agenda is. Standardized testing is a good way to take the emotion out of it and just look at the facts: http://www.prioritizepre-k.com/2010/...hen-it-counts/
and video
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13533552
and for our new Govenor just sworn in yesterday: http://www.prioritizepre-k.com/categ...e-states/iowa/
Can I ask you one thing? Why is it that there is little to no discussion about parental responsibility when it comes to preschool education? I don't mean just paying for preschool but actually DOING preschool with their own children. We seem to miss the mark when it comes to sending the message to parents that THEY can educate their infants, toddlers, and preschool children. If we assume that Home Providers who are statistically not educated as teachers can BE teachers then why not extend that ideology to parents themselves. Free preschool can happen right under your roof. I would love to see public monies going into evening and weekend classes where parents can come to learn how to teach their own children. Now THAT would be money well spent.
Who would go to the classes? They only offer things like that at "no cost" to the one demographic who doesn't want it. The only reason preschool gets kids in is bc it's free childcare to people who typically don't have jobs AND the bus picks the kids up. The effort the parents put in is worth the reward. The kids who get into preschool here are the ones who get the lowest scores on the entry test. They get the lowest scores even though they typically have a parent at home. I assure you it's not bc the parents need a class on how to teach colors or letters. It's bc they don't WANT to. It's a nice idea though. I'm glad to see you joined the conversation. I would be even more specific with this: There is NO PROOF that these programs benefit middle or upper class children. and discuss the large lower middle class and the upper middle class.
I looked over your site and thsi article is very good because it focuses on Oklahoma where a lot of TALK about their success is used to bolster the need for UPK. They are a really good example of when the research is taken out of their hands and put into standardized testing that they fail miserably. We have to be cautious with the research and see WHO is funding it and what their agenda is. Standardized testing is a good way to take the emotion out of it and just look at the facts: http://www.prioritizepre-k.com/2010/...hen-it-counts/
and video
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13533552
and for our new Govenor just sworn in yesterday: http://www.prioritizepre-k.com/categ...e-states/iowa/
Can I ask you one thing? Why is it that there is little to no discussion about parental responsibility when it comes to preschool education? I don't mean just paying for preschool but actually DOING preschool with their own children. We seem to miss the mark when it comes to sending the message to parents that THEY can educate their infants, toddlers, and preschool children. If we assume that Home Providers who are statistically not educated as teachers can BE teachers then why not extend that ideology to parents themselves. Free preschool can happen right under your roof. I would love to see public monies going into evening and weekend classes where parents can come to learn how to teach their own children. Now THAT would be money well spent.
QualiTcare 07:37 AM 01-15-2011
There are parents who wouldn't be able to choose or identify a quality preschool. They wouldn't be able to identify a hole n the ground. Have you worked with head start or public prek? There is proof
prioritizepre-k 08:17 AM 01-15-2011
Originally Posted by QualiTcare:
There are parents who wouldn't be able to choose or identify a quality preschool. They wouldn't be able to identify a hole n the ground. Have you worked with head start or public prek? There is proof
First you need to define what quality is. Next you have to ask - are parents unable to choose a quality program or are there no quality programs available to them because they live in rural areas or can't afford to pay for it?There are parents who wouldn't be able to choose or identify a quality preschool. They wouldn't be able to identify a hole n the ground. Have you worked with head start or public prek? There is proof
This is why it is so very important our government prioritize preschool funding to those children most in need. Parents should have a choice when it comes to childcare and early childhood education. Some prefer to work and send their kids to daycare. Some choose to stay at home and send them to 1/2 day educational programs. Others chose to home school. That's OK, we should be allowed our beliefs. To make preschool universal and institutionalize our children at 3 & 4 is not benefiting them. Those benefiting from this government intervention are high paid teachers, administrators, researcher, lobbyist and special interest groups.
Children should come before special interests and politics.
www.prioritizepre-k.com
prioritizepre-k 08:21 AM 01-15-2011
Originally Posted by nannyde:
I'm glad to see you joined the conversation. I would be even more specific with this: There is NO PROOF that these programs benefit middle or upper class children. and discuss the large lower middle class and the upper middle class.
I looked over your site and thsi article is very good because it focuses on Oklahoma where a lot of TALK about their success is used to bolster the need for UPK. They are a really good example of when the research is taken out of their hands and put into standardized testing that they fail miserably. We have to be cautious with the research and see WHO is funding it and what their agenda is. Standardized testing is a good way to take the emotion out of it and just look at the facts: http://www.prioritizepre-k.com/2010/...hen-it-counts/
and video
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13533552
and for our new Govenor just sworn in yesterday: http://www.prioritizepre-k.com/categ...e-states/iowa/
Can I ask you one thing? Why is it that there is little to no discussion about parental responsibility when it comes to preschool education? I don't mean just paying for preschool but actually DOING preschool with their own children. We seem to miss the mark when it comes to sending the message to parents that THEY can educate their infants, toddlers, and preschool children. If we assume that Home Providers who are statistically not educated as teachers can BE teachers then why not extend that ideology to parents themselves. Free preschool can happen right under your roof. I would love to see public monies going into evening and weekend classes where parents can come to learn how to teach their own children. Now THAT would be money well spent.
nannyde: you seem very passionate about the issue. Visit this site and really get yourself worked up. lolI'm glad to see you joined the conversation. I would be even more specific with this: There is NO PROOF that these programs benefit middle or upper class children. and discuss the large lower middle class and the upper middle class.
I looked over your site and thsi article is very good because it focuses on Oklahoma where a lot of TALK about their success is used to bolster the need for UPK. They are a really good example of when the research is taken out of their hands and put into standardized testing that they fail miserably. We have to be cautious with the research and see WHO is funding it and what their agenda is. Standardized testing is a good way to take the emotion out of it and just look at the facts: http://www.prioritizepre-k.com/2010/...hen-it-counts/
and video
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13533552
and for our new Govenor just sworn in yesterday: http://www.prioritizepre-k.com/categ...e-states/iowa/
Can I ask you one thing? Why is it that there is little to no discussion about parental responsibility when it comes to preschool education? I don't mean just paying for preschool but actually DOING preschool with their own children. We seem to miss the mark when it comes to sending the message to parents that THEY can educate their infants, toddlers, and preschool children. If we assume that Home Providers who are statistically not educated as teachers can BE teachers then why not extend that ideology to parents themselves. Free preschool can happen right under your roof. I would love to see public monies going into evening and weekend classes where parents can come to learn how to teach their own children. Now THAT would be money well spent.
www.investinginkids.net
This is a man who started a blog to promote his book Investing in Kids. His book was funded by NIEER/PEW. This is another attempt at rationalizing publicly funded pre-k.
Have fun
www.prioritizepre-k.com
nannyde 11:45 AM 01-15-2011
Originally Posted by prioritizepre-k:
nannyde: you seem very passionate about the issue. Visit this site and really get yourself worked up. lol
www.investinginkids.net
This is a man who started a blog to promote his book Investing in Kids. His book was funded by NIEER/PEW. This is another attempt at rationalizing publicly funded pre-k.
Have fun
www.prioritizepre-k.com
I'll put that in the qnannyde: you seem very passionate about the issue. Visit this site and really get yourself worked up. lol
www.investinginkids.net
This is a man who started a blog to promote his book Investing in Kids. His book was funded by NIEER/PEW. This is another attempt at rationalizing publicly funded pre-k.
Have fun
www.prioritizepre-k.com
I found this link on your site: http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/8138
I likey Mr Finn Jr
I wish he could come to my house and see about my kids. There's an answer to this and it's not so complicated after all.
I said it before. I'll say it again:
Kids need an early childhood of close proximal supervision, excellent nutrition, free play, outdoor exercise, GOOD DEEP SLEEP, discipline, and affection. They need good CARE. If they have an early childhood of good care they will be great students. Good care CAN include "education" but it will not further them academically.
At the age of five/six the kids are ready for academics. For hundreds of years we have understood this is the age to begin their "education". Nothing has changed with this generation of students. They aren't more evolved at two/three/four then they were a hundred years ago. You can't cheat mother nature. We are humans and human babies and toddlers don't prosper from early "education". They prosper from good care in the areas I listed above.
We HAVE to get back to the basics. We aren't doing better after a couple of decades of "early education". We are failing our children because we aren't supporting what REALLY matters in raising quality kids.
prioritizepre-k 11:51 AM 01-15-2011
Originally Posted by nannyde:
I'll put that in the q
I found this link on your site: http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/8138
I likey Mr Finn Jr
I wish he could come to my house and see about my kids. There's an answer to this and it's not so complicated after all.
I said it before. I'll say it again:
Kids need an early childhood of close proximal supervision, excellent nutrition, free play, outdoor exercise, GOOD DEEP SLEEP, discipline, and affection. They need good CARE. If they have an early childhood of good care they will be great students. Good care CAN include "education" but it will not further them academically.
At the age of five/six the kids are ready for academics. For hundreds of years we have understood this is the age to begin their "education". Nothing has changed with this generation of students. They aren't more evolved at two/three/four then they were a hundred years ago. You can't cheat mother nature. We are humans and human babies and toddlers don't prosper from early "education". They prosper from good care in the areas I listed above.
We HAVE to get back to the basics. We aren't doing better after a couple of decades of "early education". We are failing our children because we aren't supporting what REALLY matters in raising quality kids.
Chester Finn is our hero. We were sooo excited when we discovered him.I'll put that in the q
I found this link on your site: http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/8138
I likey Mr Finn Jr
I wish he could come to my house and see about my kids. There's an answer to this and it's not so complicated after all.
I said it before. I'll say it again:
Kids need an early childhood of close proximal supervision, excellent nutrition, free play, outdoor exercise, GOOD DEEP SLEEP, discipline, and affection. They need good CARE. If they have an early childhood of good care they will be great students. Good care CAN include "education" but it will not further them academically.
At the age of five/six the kids are ready for academics. For hundreds of years we have understood this is the age to begin their "education". Nothing has changed with this generation of students. They aren't more evolved at two/three/four then they were a hundred years ago. You can't cheat mother nature. We are humans and human babies and toddlers don't prosper from early "education". They prosper from good care in the areas I listed above.
We HAVE to get back to the basics. We aren't doing better after a couple of decades of "early education". We are failing our children because we aren't supporting what REALLY matters in raising quality kids.
AmandasFCC 12:59 PM 01-15-2011
Originally Posted by nannyde:
I'll put that in the q
I found this link on your site: http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/8138
I likey Mr Finn Jr
I wish he could come to my house and see about my kids. There's an answer to this and it's not so complicated after all.
I said it before. I'll say it again:
Kids need an early childhood of close proximal supervision, excellent nutrition, free play, outdoor exercise, GOOD DEEP SLEEP, discipline, and affection. They need good CARE. If they have an early childhood of good care they will be great students. Good care CAN include "education" but it will not further them academically.
At the age of five/six the kids are ready for academics. For hundreds of years we have understood this is the age to begin their "education". Nothing has changed with this generation of students. They aren't more evolved at two/three/four then they were a hundred years ago. You can't cheat mother nature. We are humans and human babies and toddlers don't prosper from early "education". They prosper from good care in the areas I listed above.
We HAVE to get back to the basics. We aren't doing better after a couple of decades of "early education". We are failing our children because we aren't supporting what REALLY matters in raising quality kids.
Is there a like button?I'll put that in the q
I found this link on your site: http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/8138
I likey Mr Finn Jr
I wish he could come to my house and see about my kids. There's an answer to this and it's not so complicated after all.
I said it before. I'll say it again:
Kids need an early childhood of close proximal supervision, excellent nutrition, free play, outdoor exercise, GOOD DEEP SLEEP, discipline, and affection. They need good CARE. If they have an early childhood of good care they will be great students. Good care CAN include "education" but it will not further them academically.
At the age of five/six the kids are ready for academics. For hundreds of years we have understood this is the age to begin their "education". Nothing has changed with this generation of students. They aren't more evolved at two/three/four then they were a hundred years ago. You can't cheat mother nature. We are humans and human babies and toddlers don't prosper from early "education". They prosper from good care in the areas I listed above.
We HAVE to get back to the basics. We aren't doing better after a couple of decades of "early education". We are failing our children because we aren't supporting what REALLY matters in raising quality kids.
nannyde 07:02 AM 01-16-2011
Originally Posted by prioritizepre-k:
They won't be able to show you. All of the studies advocates base their claims from were small scale studies done on the extremely disadvantaged children. They take the benefits of these small scale programs that were done decades ago and try to apply the benefits to the larger population. The advocates are not representing the entire picture and are cherry picking the benefits. I agree with you and am happy to see there are others who understand it. To learn more visit www.prioritizepre-k.com
Do you understand Florida's system?They won't be able to show you. All of the studies advocates base their claims from were small scale studies done on the extremely disadvantaged children. They take the benefits of these small scale programs that were done decades ago and try to apply the benefits to the larger population. The advocates are not representing the entire picture and are cherry picking the benefits. I agree with you and am happy to see there are others who understand it.
To learn more visit www.prioritizepre-k.comThey have vouchers for four year old preK that are like 2700 bucks per kid and it's mostly done by private providers.
Do the kids that get state funded DAY CARE also get that subisidy in ADDITION to the 2670 bucks for the 540 hours of preK? So if a kid comes to a Center or "school" they have both the child care (for the other hours per day they are there) funding PLUS the school money? This would mean that the state paid four year old who was in child care for ten hours a day would bring like ten grand to the table?
I also don't understand their summer thing. Is the summer option in ADDITION to the school year or THE preschool education (300 hours over the summer). If it isn't then do they get the 2670 for the nine/ten weeks the same as the ones that do three hours a day during the school year? Or... is it required to offer the additional 300 summer hours on top of the 540 hours they do during the school year for the same money? Can one kid get preschool for the school year AND summer for just the 2670 or does it have to be one or the other.
Since the private pay parents have to pay for their own day care I can see how this subsidy would be in ADDITION to the amount the parents give for day care. Either scenario.... state paid child care plus education money or private pay day care plus education money is going to net the provider a pretty princely sum for each individual kid.
It makes me think THIS is why the private sector has taken on the preschool. There is money to be made if you combine both sources of funding. I can see providers specifically looking for the kids who come with BOTH packages (state funded child care and school money). It would be the first time in our country where state paid kids were the most highly sought after kids as long as the money they got for child care wasn't affected by the subsidy they get for the school.
That kind of money would make it WORTH it profit wise to actually HAVE educational measurable outcomes.
Is this what you are thinking for your business? Getting state monies per kid plus the subisidized child care and or private pay for the child care?
I would think it would mean actually getting PAID for doing the education. I think most providers would be thrilled to get care money and education money for each kid instead of what most get... which is just care money that often isn't enough to cover a good salary for care.
Heck I would even do preschool if I could get nearly five bucks an hour per kid per day in three hour blocks in addition to their care money.
If they are cutting the tuition for care and substituting the 2760 per kid to decrease the cost of child care to the parents then I can't see it working. Meaning if a kids parents paid seven hundred a month for day care but with the subsidey the center lowered it to four hundred a month because the other three hundred was provided by the voucher... it wouldn't really be worth it to do it. If the Center got their seven hundred a month PLUS the three hundred a month the voucher brought THEN I could see it working. (easy math but you get the point)
So how does it work?
I know there must be some market where the kids just come for the free three hours of school and don't use any other service. My guess is that these kids are not so highly sought after and could affect the total take on the other kids who get both funding. If that is the case, is there businesses that can refuse enrolling kids who have parents that just want the free three hour deal? Those kids would just fund in at about five dollars per hour. I can't see fifteen a day per kid really benefiting the business unless you could do three classes back to back a day with just preschool kids. You would have to have some other form of income for the slot for those kids.
prioritizepre-k 07:23 AM 01-16-2011
Originally Posted by nannyde:
Do you understand Florida's system?
They have vouchers for four year old preK that are like 2700 bucks per kid and it's mostly done by private providers.
Do the kids that get state funded DAY CARE also get that subisidy in ADDITION to the 2670 bucks for the 540 hours of preK? So if a kid comes to a Center or "school" they have both the child care (for the other hours per day they are there) funding PLUS the school money? This would mean that the state paid four year old who was in child care for ten hours a day would bring like ten grand to the table?
I also don't understand their summer thing. Is the summer option in ADDITION to the school year or THE preschool education (300 hours over the summer). If it isn't then do they get the 2670 for the nine/ten weeks the same as the ones that do three hours a day during the school year? Or... is it required to offer the additional 300 summer hours on top of the 540 hours they do during the school year for the same money? Can one kid get preschool for the school year AND summer for just the 2670 or does it have to be one or the other.
Since the private pay parents have to pay for their own day care I can see how this subsidy would be in ADDITION to the amount the parents give for day care. Either scenario.... state paid child care plus education money or private pay day care plus education money is going to net the provider a pretty princely sum for each individual kid.
It makes me think THIS is why the private sector has taken on the preschool. There is money to be made if you combine both sources of funding. I can see providers specifically looking for the kids who come with BOTH packages (state funded child care and school money). It would be the first time in our country where state paid kids were the most highly sought after kids as long as the money they got for child care wasn't affected by the subsidy they get for the school.
That kind of money would make it WORTH it profit wise to actually HAVE educational measurable outcomes.
Is this what you are thinking for your business? Getting state monies per kid plus the subisidized child care and or private pay for the child care?
I would think it would mean actually getting PAID for doing the education. I think most providers would be thrilled to get care money and education money for each kid instead of what most get... which is just care money that often isn't enough to cover a good salary for care.
Heck I would even do preschool if I could get nearly five bucks an hour per kid per day in three hour blocks in addition to their care money.
If they are cutting the tuition for care and substituting the 2760 per kid to decrease the cost of child care to the parents then I can't see it working. Meaning if a kids parents paid seven hundred a month for day care but with the subsidey the center lowered it to four hundred a month because the other three hundred was provided by the voucher... it wouldn't really be worth it to do it. If the Center got their seven hundred a month PLUS the three hundred a month the voucher brought THEN I could see it working. (easy math but you get the point)
So how does it work?
I know there must be some market where the kids just come for the free three hours of school and don't use any other service. My guess is that these kids are not so highly sought after and could affect the total take on the other kids who get both funding. If that is the case, is there businesses that can refuse enrolling kids who have parents that just want the free three hour deal? Those kids would just fund in at about five dollars per hour. I can't see fifteen a day per kid really benefiting the business unless you could do three classes back to back a day with just preschool kids. You would have to have some other form of income for the slot for those kids.
I'm getting a headache just reading about the craziness. lol What I do know about Florida is that they have been very successful is raising 4th grade reading scores. They went from below the national average to above the national average. According to NIEER, they spend the least amount of money on preschool. Do you understand Florida's system?
They have vouchers for four year old preK that are like 2700 bucks per kid and it's mostly done by private providers.
Do the kids that get state funded DAY CARE also get that subisidy in ADDITION to the 2670 bucks for the 540 hours of preK? So if a kid comes to a Center or "school" they have both the child care (for the other hours per day they are there) funding PLUS the school money? This would mean that the state paid four year old who was in child care for ten hours a day would bring like ten grand to the table?
I also don't understand their summer thing. Is the summer option in ADDITION to the school year or THE preschool education (300 hours over the summer). If it isn't then do they get the 2670 for the nine/ten weeks the same as the ones that do three hours a day during the school year? Or... is it required to offer the additional 300 summer hours on top of the 540 hours they do during the school year for the same money? Can one kid get preschool for the school year AND summer for just the 2670 or does it have to be one or the other.
Since the private pay parents have to pay for their own day care I can see how this subsidy would be in ADDITION to the amount the parents give for day care. Either scenario.... state paid child care plus education money or private pay day care plus education money is going to net the provider a pretty princely sum for each individual kid.
It makes me think THIS is why the private sector has taken on the preschool. There is money to be made if you combine both sources of funding. I can see providers specifically looking for the kids who come with BOTH packages (state funded child care and school money). It would be the first time in our country where state paid kids were the most highly sought after kids as long as the money they got for child care wasn't affected by the subsidy they get for the school.
That kind of money would make it WORTH it profit wise to actually HAVE educational measurable outcomes.
Is this what you are thinking for your business? Getting state monies per kid plus the subisidized child care and or private pay for the child care?
I would think it would mean actually getting PAID for doing the education. I think most providers would be thrilled to get care money and education money for each kid instead of what most get... which is just care money that often isn't enough to cover a good salary for care.
Heck I would even do preschool if I could get nearly five bucks an hour per kid per day in three hour blocks in addition to their care money.
If they are cutting the tuition for care and substituting the 2760 per kid to decrease the cost of child care to the parents then I can't see it working. Meaning if a kids parents paid seven hundred a month for day care but with the subsidey the center lowered it to four hundred a month because the other three hundred was provided by the voucher... it wouldn't really be worth it to do it. If the Center got their seven hundred a month PLUS the three hundred a month the voucher brought THEN I could see it working. (easy math but you get the point)
So how does it work?
I know there must be some market where the kids just come for the free three hours of school and don't use any other service. My guess is that these kids are not so highly sought after and could affect the total take on the other kids who get both funding. If that is the case, is there businesses that can refuse enrolling kids who have parents that just want the free three hour deal? Those kids would just fund in at about five dollars per hour. I can't see fifteen a day per kid really benefiting the business unless you could do three classes back to back a day with just preschool kids. You would have to have some other form of income for the slot for those kids.
I don't want any state or federal money. I just want to run my business. Childcare is so complex. Is it day care, is it preschool. For the record, my business is 1/2 day preschool. Kids are only there for 2 1/2 hours. Most of my families are stay at home moms.
The goal of the UPK advocates is to provide full day childcare for three and four year old children and have this responsibility fall onto our public school. Our schools are already overburdened. Child care should be handled by the childcare professionals not our public schools.
nannyde 07:33 AM 01-16-2011
Originally Posted by prioritizepre-k:
I'm getting a headache just reading about the craziness. lol What I do know about Florida is that they have been very successful is raising 4th grade reading scores. They went from below the national average to above the national average. According to NIEER, they spend the least amount of money on preschool.
I don't want any state or federal money. I just want to run my business. Childcare is so complex. Is it day care, is it preschool. For the record, my business is 1/2 day preschool. Kids are only there for 2 1/2 hours. Most of my families are stay at home moms.
The goal of the UPK advocates is to provide full day childcare for three and four year old children and have this responsibility fall onto our public school. Our schools are already overburdened. Child care should be handled by the childcare professionals not our public schools.
The reason I bring up Florida is because on first blush there has to be some reason why the private sector does it. It's got to be money.I'm getting a headache just reading about the craziness. lol What I do know about Florida is that they have been very successful is raising 4th grade reading scores. They went from below the national average to above the national average. According to NIEER, they spend the least amount of money on preschool.
I don't want any state or federal money. I just want to run my business. Childcare is so complex. Is it day care, is it preschool. For the record, my business is 1/2 day preschool. Kids are only there for 2 1/2 hours. Most of my families are stay at home moms.
The goal of the UPK advocates is to provide full day childcare for three and four year old children and have this responsibility fall onto our public school. Our schools are already overburdened. Child care should be handled by the childcare professionals not our public schools.
We can't determine WHY it works if we don't look at the money and why the private sector is taking it on. Simply put.....if the education money is in ADDITION to the care money not included in the care money THEN you could actually have the funds to do more than care.
If your market is just SAHM's getting 2.5 hours per day X days a week during X times during the year then you must be getting a pretty good sum PER HOUR PER KID to make a living at it. It can't be the five dollar per hour the florida providers are getting just for the three hours per day for 180 days per year. The math doesn't work unless you are allowed VERY VERY high adult to child ratios.
There's no way that stand alone five dollar an hour "school" for four year olds is going to make a difference in test scores. There HAS to be more money (state funded, parent funded, food program etc.)
nannyde 07:41 AM 01-16-2011
Two years ago I had a kid go from my house to the Grand View Park Baptist preschool at age four.
Her Mom gave me the actual hours of service and the days school was in and I figured out to the hour what the cost per hour was total for the year. Two years ago it was 6.72 per hour per kid.
Now they LOOKED like they had a school year but they were quite clever in how they do the payments. Parents pay a flat rate per month starting in August and last payment in May. Thing was that there was only a few hours of actual school in August in May and they took two weeks off at Christmas, one week at spring break, and early outs..no school on Thanksgiving and religious holiday days.
When it was all said and done it was 6.72 per hour. The area I serve the care is about three dollars an hour.
They are very successful but the parents don't really GET the money part of it until they feel the difference between having so many days of not having care at all or shortened days when comparing it to child care. It's litteraly more than twice as expensive so of course they have more services for the individual kids.
No matter how it is sliced there has to be money FOR the schooling and it has to be separate than care money. Any other combo will not produce results that are measurable.
Her Mom gave me the actual hours of service and the days school was in and I figured out to the hour what the cost per hour was total for the year. Two years ago it was 6.72 per hour per kid.
Now they LOOKED like they had a school year but they were quite clever in how they do the payments. Parents pay a flat rate per month starting in August and last payment in May. Thing was that there was only a few hours of actual school in August in May and they took two weeks off at Christmas, one week at spring break, and early outs..no school on Thanksgiving and religious holiday days.
When it was all said and done it was 6.72 per hour. The area I serve the care is about three dollars an hour.
They are very successful but the parents don't really GET the money part of it until they feel the difference between having so many days of not having care at all or shortened days when comparing it to child care. It's litteraly more than twice as expensive so of course they have more services for the individual kids.
No matter how it is sliced there has to be money FOR the schooling and it has to be separate than care money. Any other combo will not produce results that are measurable.
prioritizepre-k 07:41 AM 01-16-2011
Originally Posted by nannyde:
The reason I bring up Florida is because on first blush there has to be some reason why the private sector does it. It's got to be money.
We can't determine WHY it works if we don't look at the money and why the private sector is taking it on. Simply put.....if the education money is in ADDITION to the care money not included in the care money THEN you could actually have the funds to do more than care.
If your market is just SAHM's getting 2.5 hours per day X days a week during X times during the year then you must be getting a pretty good sum PER HOUR PER KID to make a living at it. It can't be the five dollar per hour the florida providers are getting just for the three hours per day for 180 days per year. The math doesn't work unless you are allowed VERY VERY high adult to child ratios.
There's no way that stand alone five dollar an hour "school" for four year olds is going to make a difference in test scores. There HAS to be more money (state funded, parent funded, food program etc.)
no state or federal funding. (always more than one teacher in the classroom) 2's 4-1 3's 6-1 4s 7-1 The reason I bring up Florida is because on first blush there has to be some reason why the private sector does it. It's got to be money.
We can't determine WHY it works if we don't look at the money and why the private sector is taking it on. Simply put.....if the education money is in ADDITION to the care money not included in the care money THEN you could actually have the funds to do more than care.
If your market is just SAHM's getting 2.5 hours per day X days a week during X times during the year then you must be getting a pretty good sum PER HOUR PER KID to make a living at it. It can't be the five dollar per hour the florida providers are getting just for the three hours per day for 180 days per year. The math doesn't work unless you are allowed VERY VERY high adult to child ratios.
There's no way that stand alone five dollar an hour "school" for four year olds is going to make a difference in test scores. There HAS to be more money (state funded, parent funded, food program etc.)
cost - depending on the amount of days..
monthly 2 day 170 3 day 185 five day 50
yes i have state certified teachers in each classroom.
prioritizepre-k 07:43 AM 01-16-2011
Originally Posted by prioritizepre-k:
no state or federal funding. (always more than one teacher in the classroom) 2's 4-1 3's 6-1 4s 7-1
cost - depending on the amount of days..
monthly 2 day 170 3 day 185 five day 50
yes i have state certified teachers in each classroom.
oops 5 day 250no state or federal funding. (always more than one teacher in the classroom) 2's 4-1 3's 6-1 4s 7-1
cost - depending on the amount of days..
monthly 2 day 170 3 day 185 five day 50
yes i have state certified teachers in each classroom.
nannyde 07:50 AM 01-16-2011
Originally Posted by prioritizepre-k:
no state or federal funding. (always more than one teacher in the classroom) 2's 4-1 3's 6-1 4s 7-1
cost - depending on the amount of days..
monthly 2 day 170 3 day 185 five day 50
yes i have state certified teachers in each classroom.
I don't know what your calendar looks like and how many of those weeks you are not in session but no matter how you slice that this is a very high hourly rate. (looks like maybe a target rate of around eight an hour). no state or federal funding. (always more than one teacher in the classroom) 2's 4-1 3's 6-1 4s 7-1
cost - depending on the amount of days..
monthly 2 day 170 3 day 185 five day 50
yes i have state certified teachers in each classroom.
That's GOOD .. it should be that way. I don't think you could compete with the five dollars an hour for stand alone (no child care fee included) that Florida offers. I don't see how Florida can do it either. There HAS to be some other monies in this.