The phrase "high-quality child care" packs the same punch to me as "high quality frozen dinner," or "high-quality rap video." Some are better than others, but the basic premise is still a loser. Yet along with that hoary old shtick on "parent education," it is at the center of a new Washington state public-private partnership called "Thrive by Five." The Seattle Times reports.
Governor Christine Gregoire and William H. Gates Sr., of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, will lead the public-private partnership...The group will start with $9 million, with more funds added in the years to come. The money will go toward staff training, parent education and support, and boosting the quality of existing preschool programs.....the partnership will fund early-learning centers in White Center and in another community yet to be named in Eastern Washington. Those two communities will serve as models for high-quality child care as the state moves forward with its focus on early learning.....(John) Bancroft (of the Puget Sound Educational Service District), who will direct the initiative (in White Center), said the community needs more support for its children....(and that)....White Center suffers from a lack of affordable, high-quality child care.Easily-grasped, values-driven common sense involvement from parents, grandparents and loved ones is what gets kids hooked on learning in the early years. American immigrant parents have been figuring this out for more than a century: it ain't rocket science. In recent decades, many immigrant parents in the U.S. (including Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Indian, African and West Indies) haven't needed to be told Word One about the importance of early education, especially developing a child's interests in literacy, math and science. Like others, they are often "working two jobs to make ends meet." Yet they teach their children well from an early age, which is reflected in later K-20 educational successes.
The "cultural" argument that some parents are less "equipped" to get it right here is a red herring cloaked in condescension and soft bigotry. As if many well-meaning Latino and Samoan parents, for instance, are somehow really less capable of grasping the importance of the early learning years in today's frenetic environment. Or as if a grossly negligent parent of any nationality does not already know they're sloughing off their kid's future. Libraries, the rich outside world, conversation and ideas, the "off" buttons on the DVD player and handheld gaming devices - these are all quite evident options to begin with, regardless of culture, ethnicity, class or income. As a parent, you either get with the early years program or not, and the recipe is as basic as spaghetti sauce. Some philanthropists, politicians and public employee unions need to pretend otherwise, however.
We can expect all the usual paint-by-numbers editorial blandishments from the usual suspects, praising Thrive By Five's seemingly unassailable social interventionism. But the public-private partnership is no substitute for and no boon to common sense and strong families. Nor does philanthropy obviate the need for competent and honest governance, as SF Chron Sunday op-ed contributor G. Pascal Zachary rightfully - and not so coincidentally - hopes that Bill Gates 3.0 may some day discover, with respect to his foundation's African initiatives.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at July 11, 2006 10:28 AM | Email ThisGates is being duped because he thinks he's doing good. He's got a serious case of "do something" disease and has a textbook case of liberal guilt.
Of course Gregoire knows exactly what game is being played here "as the state moves forward with it's focus on early learning".
As far as the "progressives" are concerned the earlier the better to begin their hate America socialist brainwashing.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 11, 2006 11:45 AMEverything else pales by comparison. Given the choice, kids don't want to go to daycare! And daycare workers will never love those kids the way mom and dad do.
Posted by: Misty on July 11, 2006 12:14 PMThe State of Washington already provides child care subsidies to low-income working parents based on need. In counties where the cost of child care (and living) is higher, such as King County, city and county governments provide additional subsidies for parents whose incomes are above the state cutoff.
White Center is a lower income area, especially when compared with the rest of King County. And presumably a lower income area in eastern Washington can also be located.
Lower income working parents in these areas ALREADY QUALIFY for government child care subsidies. Most of these parents already take advantage of these subsidies, if they have to rely on non-relative child care in order to work due to their family circumstances (i.e. single parents for example).
Existing programs are quite sufficient and serve ALL LOWER INCOME families, regardless of where they live or what their ethnic background is. We don't need this dilettante approach by Governor Gregoire and the Gates family.
This proposal makes about as much sense as "minority scholarships" that are awarded on the premise that many students from certain minority groups lack sufficient income and finances to afford college.
A minimum of 30% of kindergartners come from single parent homes- I'm venturing that combined with divorce and out of wedlock births, the number is actually between 40-50%. The majority of these cases are where one parent refuses to share custody with the other for reasons outside of the child's best interest.
Why would Gregoire push for this program but NOT support fellow Democrat Kastama's shared parenting legislation which costs tax payers NOTHING and saves tons of $ on social program costs?
Posted by: Andy on July 11, 2006 12:34 PMSarcasm INTENDED!!!
There was a comment in the SF artice quotuing Warren Buffett..."economic markets fail the poor, which is why charitable donations are important."
Economic markets don't fail the poor. If anything, the opposite is true. Subsidize dysfunction, and...guess what! You've got more dysfunction!
Posted by: South County on July 11, 2006 12:48 PMBut what about kids who, for lack of a better word, have crappy or absentee parents?
You can blame government and liberalism all you want, but what do you do about bad parents?
If you think you can't legislate this kind of thing, what would you do? (aside from bashing the government that is).
Posted by: wd on July 11, 2006 01:02 PMIt is damned near IMPOSSIBLE to own a home, and support a familiy on a single average salary here in Puget Sound. Lets say you make $70k at Boeing, a very generous salary by most standards. Now, try to purchase a starter home ($400-500k), and support 3 kids on that. Good luck! Hope those kids like public school too, because private, at >$10k/year/kid is not an option
High quality childcare is necessary BECAUSE BOTH PARENTS MUST WORK. Why? You can blame the large decline in real wages, the shifting of the overall tax burden onto lower income wage earners, and other fine right wing policies.
The days when a standard blue collar salary could purchase a house, and support a 5 person family are long over. The post-WW2 American Dream is long dead in this country.
Preschool should also be universal, as it is in most other civilized countries. Children learn best starting at age 3, not age 5. While it should never be mandatory, it should be available for those who need it.
Posted by: proteus on July 11, 2006 01:27 PMSecond model is we extract the children of dysfunctional parents from the dysfunction for 6 hours a day, five days a week, and they arrive at Kindergarten at near parity with the children of high functioning parents. And they stay caught up for about 3 years, when they start falling behind again, never to catch up.
What did it cost? What did we gain?
The solution is not in the schools, nor is it in pre-schools. The solution is getting children away from dysfunctional parents. But how are Bill and Melinda gonna do that? There Medina estate isn't that big!
Posted by: huckleberry on July 11, 2006 01:47 PMBelieve it or not, there are plenty of single parents who support themselves and two or so children on far less net income each month than what richer folks are paying in a mortgage payment for the brand new 3,000 square foot house.
Government child care subsidies for lower income families in these circumstances make a lot of sense. Targeting them only towards racial minorities, as Christine Gregoire and Bill Gates are proposing, on the other hand, is just plain wrong.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 11, 2006 02:14 PMThe dysfunctionals/meth head demographic - though growing - is not the demographic this is targeted at.
Gregoire brushes aside that members of her own party ACTIVELY stall/thwart legislation that would maximize time parents spend with their kids in the name of keeping a power base with a few interest groups.
We're talking about family court judges, NOW, and the Northwest women's law center. All of the above are AGAINST having two parents involved in a broken family- unless you're gay of course- then it's a civil rights issue.
Posted by: Andy on July 11, 2006 02:17 PMUsually, the mom has her own career if it is a two parent household.
One parent households need to go. I am a subscriber to Bill Cosby's mantra about family.
Posted by: swatter on July 11, 2006 02:46 PMFolks, what's going to help more: Financial aid left up to you whether or not to use that towards staying at home or towards child care... or child care for a few?
Gee, I thought so.
Posted by: Watchdog on July 11, 2006 03:25 PMUnfortunately the American society is not built on strong familial ties anymore. Therefore, support networks(grandma, granpa, aunts and uncles) for working parents are not available or easily accessible. So, what is the solution then?
How should a strugging parent(s) that makes less than 20k in yearly income, with a 2 bedroom $800/month apt, supporting a child suppose to do? Granted anyone in this situation shouldn't have kids in the first place. But the reality is...it happens
Posted by: sin on July 11, 2006 04:05 PMThe reality is that the "progressives" encourage this kind of behavior, particularly single parenthood. The more people that are dependent on their nanny state the happier they are.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 11, 2006 04:23 PMI hate the 'it takes a village' government approach, I'll admit, but do believe something needs to be done to break the cycle of dysfunction. We can't simply take the children away from all ill-equipped parents (except for the obvious neglect/abuse reasons) - what would we do with them - stick them in 'villages'? We can't prevent people from having kids? Mandatory sterilization anyone?
I'm not a sociologist and really don't have any answers, but I can't sit here and say that if everybody would just parent correctly and if nobody ever got divorced and if no single women ever got pregnant this problem would go away.
Progressives took advantage of the Boomer "Me" culture where many are more concerned with a second income or a run at Congress than they are with raising their own children. The hope for progressives is that many people will opt for themselves and allow their children to go to somewhere run by the state.
But it is changing, more and more I read about people in Gen X and Gen Y who are postponing material gain while their children are young and impressionable. Homeschooling is on the rise, and many families are more engaged with the grandparents, etc. So the model is shifting more towards the Asian culture.
What we are going to continue to see is a divide between the conservatives, who will take the time to educate their children and the liberals who will let their children be raised by the state. Fortunuately, the liberal children will in general end up dumber, the product of least common denominator education programs and other multicultural garbage. So in the end conservatives will continue to dominate.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 11, 2006 05:00 PMI don't recall saying that.
"Bill, take a look at the rate of single parenthood in red states and W. Europe".
And your point is?
The point is that Republican policies lead to more single parents.
Posted by: Mary on July 11, 2006 05:20 PMThe mantra of the loon....again. Only the Democrat party cares for the family. Come in and we will take care of you, oh you are a minority? We want your vote so we will promise that we will tax someone to enslave you to a government program. Oh you you got some other dependence on a government program? That's way cool because those evil conservatives want you to drink dirty water and breath pollution. Got to have spit for brain matter to keep this message going.
Do you know what you look like with your best bag and your bad shoes? You look like a rube.
Please explain to us how that happens, Mary.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 11, 2006 05:33 PMI assume Mary that you have statistics to back up what you say.
Interesting isn't it that the Republicans in reality have not banned "sex ed, contraception, or family planning"? The left however has been highly succesful at promoting all three.
What a unique twist. Blame Republicans for a social outcome that has everything to do with the "progressives" agenda.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 11, 2006 06:02 PM
If you had been paying attention Mary Mary quite contrary, you would have noticed that conservatives teach (and practice) the ultimate "sex ed" - it's called taking responsibility, and it's characterized by abstinence, fidelity, and monogamy. I have noticed that the left has been working overtime to advocate promiscuity, hedonism, irresponsibility, and nihilism. That's OK by me - I'm witnessing the thinning of the liberal herd and it can't happen fast enough to suit me!
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 11, 2006 06:19 PMAnd by the way, the rates of single parenthood are greatest among city-dwelling African Americans. Who claims to fight for them but never delivers on the promises?
Posted by: MES on July 11, 2006 06:26 PMOnly to the extent that you attempted to reframe it. (Hint: You don't count and your attempt failed). Go back and re-read Matt's intro. Someone besides Matt interjected the aspect of single parents into the conversation. The thread is about misguided philanthropy as it pertains to child-care. I'm just responding to your off-topic posts because they amuse me.
"Fidelity and monogamy don't really have much to do with single parents."
Well duh! The application of fidelity and monogamy have a profound effect on the phenomenon of single parenthood. The virtues that you look down your snoot at.
"...when it comes to sex, they try to deny that a human sex-drive exists outside of marriage..."
No, we just try to control ourselves.
"I'm just surprised sometimes that they're so open about it."
I'm not at all surprised that you are surprised. Life itself must be a vast, frightening roller-coaster ride for you.
"Republican/conservative policies lead to more single parents"
Yep, just as breast milk leads to crack cocaine...
I don't mind that "The Bill" likes to play philanthropist. The thing that I find so disturbing is that I see a reoccurring trend with his philanthropy. He is not unlike the back alley pusher that says "The first taste is free". He wants to set in motion his idyllic programs, but he expects that the local communities will eventually take them over. And there's the rub. If they could afford it in the first place, don't you think they would have already implemented it?
The best thing communities could do would be to tell The Bill; "Sure, we'll take your grant, no strings attached. Otherwise, no thanks".
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 11, 2006 08:01 PMHow, exactly? And why didn't the liberal solution of throwing money at any and all issues while increasing government bureaucracy and dependence on government solve take care of the issue?
Posted by: MES on July 11, 2006 08:52 PMI think telling kids that are in 5/6th grade that they shouldn't have sex and that there are serious concenquences to having it, such as pregnacny, STD's (which can bring infertility & death) and mental troubles such as depression. I also believe that they can learn about ways to protect themselves if they make the decision to have sex.
I grew up and learned from my father that there are consequences to having sex, but if I did that "don't be silly, wrap your willy". That wouldn't be full proof as condoms break and you can still get STD's from sex with condoms, but I'd be safe. He also said he didn't want me to have sex. I ended up having intercourse when I was 15. I made the decision and don't have any problems with it. However, I knew the issues with doing it and am glad my luck didn't run out as it did for many boys/girls I knew growing up in both HS and College.
I don't believe there is any reason for the State to tell children younger than 12 about sex. I hear about these programs teaching 1st graders about condoms and sex and that about the worst thing that can be done. Let them be children and don't confuse them or teach them that....if a parent wants to then that is there choice, but it shouldn't be made for them by some school district or state house.
Posted by: Dengle on July 11, 2006 09:39 PMAnd DO what?
Lefties want to throw money at preschool age kids and start their socialist indoctrination as early as possible. They'll take Gates's money along with as much as they can confiscate from the rest of us.
Anyone who thinks these people will ever "meet in the middle" ought to have their head examined.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 12, 2006 09:05 AMWhat makes you think we are doing nothing about the problem? We are working to create alternatives to the failing system of government schools. We are involved in community activities that provide the children of dysfunctional parents exposure to more wholesome activities. We are donating time and money to charitable groups that provide services to the needy. And mostly, we are paying federal income taxes to support failing government programs.
We are involved.
Posted by: huckleberry on July 12, 2006 09:20 AMLefties want to throw money at preschool age kids and start their socialist indoctrination as early as possible. They'll take Gates's money along with as much as they can confiscate from the rest of us.
Anyone who thinks these people will ever "meet in the middle" ought to have their head examined."
It is this type of response that really drives the nail into the coffin. It is exactly what I mean about pointing the finger at someone else.
I am glad for huckleberry's response to my most recent post. But you must have misunderstood me, I did not imply that WE ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE PROBLEM. It is the constant he said she said BS that slows down the process.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that certain people should be supported by the system for the rest of thier life but I also believe in giving a person a hand up when they need it with limitations. Children should be protected from dysfunctional irresponsible parents but in the same time children should not also be so overtly sheltered and protected that we as parents have no rights in exercising proper discipline.
The problem lies when tax payers money is used with no checks and balances to ensure that the money is utilized properly. Not to mention education is not exactly at the top of our priority since WE are too busy pointing fingers a the right or left. Most of these programs start out with good intentions (educate the children, keep them off the streets and to provide positive environments) to make a difference but most fail simply becuase no one paid attention to details...like hiring qualified staff members, keeping turnovers low with the proper amount of staffing, data retention and analysis of progress. CHECKS AND BALANCES
Posted by: sin on July 12, 2006 11:10 AMAs Alphabet Soup so well put it: "Let's compromise...and do it my way"
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 12, 2006 11:32 AMWhen I say compromise I mean compromise...
Posted by: sin on July 12, 2006 11:52 AMLets's have a little test:
How do you feel about school vouchers?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 12, 2006 12:18 PMhttp://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Posted by: Mary on July 12, 2006 12:30 PMNaturally you have no objection to using my tax dollars to support your liberal indoctrination factories.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 12, 2006 12:49 PMI'll read it the next time I'm having trouble falling asleep.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 12, 2006 01:09 PMWho exactly are the "You guys" are you refering to? And "mainstream" to what? Again, you just keep showing how ignorant you really are.
"Bill" reading your past responses to other posts has really opened my eyes...NOT!!! You haven't proposed any viable solutions except to complain and complain and complain. That nail in the coffin just keeps going deeper and deeper. No wonder you don't like the idea of comprise it doesn't suit you. (notice that I didn't say "people like you")
About your little "test" about school vouchers, you should be happy to know that I don't agree with it. I really think that we should spend more time increasing the quality of public schools and not just treat it like a place for children to to be at for 8 hrs. For example, hiring qualified teachers, better checks and balances, uncorrupt unions, letting go of programs that doesn't work, giving the rights back to the adults, stop overtly cuddling children, quickly getting rid of unprofessional staff members that obviously molested children. Hello!!! Again, I have to point out that the reasons the public gets riled up is becuase we've seen that tax payers money can be misused and abused even with good intentions behind it. Giving money directly to familis are not the answer but the competition for better quality education between schools (public or private) is.
Posted by: sin on July 12, 2006 03:22 PMI think vouchers giving parents a real choice is a pretty good solution. Folks ought to be able to choose private education just like the Clintons and Gores did.
I'd like to know just how that huge laundry list you have of things "we" need to do to improve the quality of public schools might be accomplished with an entrenched liberal bureaucracy and a powerful teacher's union.
Wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to simply give parents a choice?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 12, 2006 03:40 PMAnd I really appreciated being able to read everyone's response and opinions. People like me who believe in standing in the middle and striving for compromise tend not to be heard becuase we've somehow divided ourselves into siding with the right or the left.
Yes, I agree with "Bill" that parents should have the choice in where thier children go to school and not have to be designated by what programs and schools call "service areas". But like welfare, giving money directly to someone to help themselves seem to be in good intentions but where are the limitations? Next thing we know, like welfare, we've got certain people taking advantage of the system and still end up with poor public school systems? I think throwing money at people is not the way go. America is known for people to pull themselves up and make something of themselves not live like having a sense of entitlement.
Posted by: sin on July 12, 2006 04:36 PMMy advice to you is to drink - heavily....
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 12, 2006 06:16 PMPlease point to your source of marriage statistics on divorce rates in red vs. blue states.
Posted by: Peggy U on July 13, 2006 10:04 AMThat was a bitchy remark, and it is unsubstantiable. I know many Republicans who donate money to Boys and Girls Club, volunteer their time in schools, and organize 4-H clubs and Boy Scouts groups (by the way, these groups welcome low-income kids with open arms - I can put you in touch with a few families who have benefited, if you would like). I know a Republican teacher who holds evening classes one day a week; his services are entirely voluntary.
My particular effort is in helping parents learn(math mostly), so that they can better teach their own children (because the schools sure don't have as much invested in kids' welfare as their own parents do!) I also work with my own kids (obviously) and their friends (when they have homework questions).
Unfeeling? Unfeeling is throwing good money after bad. Fix the public school system first before you create another money-wasting monster.
Gotta love it!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 15, 2006 09:14 AM