Pre-school for kids: does it really work?

[Ideologue]

7$/day for daycare centers, wich are only available to about 1/3 of the children in the province.

"Only" available to a third of the kiddies here? Should be less than that. In fact, it should be for parents who can afford none at all.

What Viper doesn't mention is that wealth is not considered as a threshold of admission, which would weed out the wealthier parents. Thus, parents who can afford sending their kiddies to private daycare clog the system away from those the system was aiming to help in the first place.

After all, why not? We are all equals after all, even when the household income is 100K/year and both parents drive a BMW. So we have the right to 7$/day daycare as much as others after we have to wait in queue six months for an opening. Parents ain't dumb, if they have the choice to park their kids away at 35$/day or at 7$/day, (because let's be honest, it's all about occupying their kids away at a cheap cost while daddy and mommy work) they'll choose the latter and make it worth waiting months for a place.

That is pure Quebec efficiency.

Although Viper notes this doesn't seem to be the case, why would this offend you so?  I mean, they let rich kids into elementary school.  Why not daycare?

[derspiess]

I was afraid that, in the long term, the kid might lose interest in school, suffer some kind of education burn-out.  I knew a couple of guys to wich it happenned. 

That actually happened to me multiple times.  Pre-school (which in my own memory was 95% fun activities & maybe 5% actual school) did not speed that up any.

ah, there's a catch...

Might be obvious, but many refuse to acknowledge it.  Like proponents of the Head Start program in the US.

[derspiess]

After all, why not? We are all equals after all, even when the household income is 100K/year and both parents drive a BMW.

Those people probably need it to, since payments on their BMWs would eat up a good chunk of their paychecks

[Admiral Yi]

Although Viper notes this doesn't seem to be the case, why would this offend you so?  I mean, they let rich kids into elementary school.  Why not daycare?

Surely even you would draw a line *somewhere*, wouldn't you?

[Sheilbh]

3-4's probably too young to learn reading and writing or maths, surely?  Though I think pre-school's a good idea I thought it was more to do with structured play - so learning colours and things like that as well as the socialisation.

Also I'm with Ide, don't see what's outrageous about it at all.

[Barrister]

3-4's probably too young to learn reading and writing or maths, surely?  Though I think pre-school's a good idea I thought it was more to do with structured play - so learning colours and things like that as well as the socialisation.

Also I'm with Ide, don't see what's outrageous about it at all.

Well my little guy isn't there yet obviously, so I'm no expert, but even at 3-4 I think kids can start learning letters and numbers.

[Ed Anger]

I know I wouldn't put a kid in a preschool that gives out homework.

Homework to a 3-4 yr old?

[Richard Hakluyt]

The corporate drones of tomorrow.

[Sheilbh]

Well my little guy isn't there yet obviously, so I'm no expert, but even at 3-4 I think kids can start learning letters and numbers.

True enough for a 4 year old, that's when you start school in England.  And you can learn numbers and letters.  I suppose I just think it's a bit too early for that sort of structured learning - I agree with Ed on the whole homework issue too.

[Ideologue]

Although Viper notes this doesn't seem to be the case, why would this offend you so?  I mean, they let rich kids into elementary school.  Why not daycare?

Surely even you would draw a line *somewhere*, wouldn't you?

Now, now, I don't have to.

I would certainly draw a line at straight-up paying all child-rearing expenses, but a program that would permit mothers (and/or fathers) to reenter the workforce rapidly, without burdening them with daycare costs?  Sure.  I mean, if a major portion of your income is going to paying someone to watch out for your kid, it's a huge disincentive against working.

It also has the advantage of being harder to abuse other forms of redistribution, e.g. cash payments.  Finally, it would directly create jobs--indeed, jobs for stupid people, since the only basic requirement for looking after small children is to not be a pedophile.*

Why do you hate jobs?

*Well, one would think.  These days you probably need an M.A. to provide any services to a child you didn't create with your own genetic material.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I think that there is a lot to be said for parents actually spending some time with their children 

[Ideologue]

3-4's probably too young to learn reading and writing or maths, surely?  Though I think pre-school's a good idea I thought it was more to do with structured play - so learning colours and things like that as well as the socialisation.

Also I'm with Ide, don't see what's outrageous about it at all.

Well my little guy isn't there yet obviously, so I'm no expert, but even at 3-4 I think kids can start learning letters and numbers.

I'm guessing S means actually structured, graded work?  Which I'd agree with, but parents should definitely be teaching literacy and numeracy from about 2 years old onward, if not prior.

Edit: and a foreign language, if possible.  If preschools taught foreign languages, and they may well do, they'd be worthwhile just for that.

[Ed Anger]

I think that there is a lot to be said for parents actually spending some time with their children 

Just not too much. 

[Richard Hakluyt]

I think that there is a lot to be said for parents actually spending some time with their children 

Just not too much. 

Indeed, 15 minutes a month is probably about right...............not that I'm having a crappy evening or anything 

[Ideologue]

I think that there is a lot to be said for parents actually spending some time with their children 

Just not too much. 

Indeed, 15 minutes a month is probably about right.

Just like ultraviolet radiation.