Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Gap Analysis Reveals Large Unmet Demand for Affordable, High-Quality Preschool in Seattle

Posted by on Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Implementing universal Seattle-wide high-quality preschool isn't really a controversial topic within city hall; both the mayor and the council have voiced their unanimous support. But how to fund it, and to what extent, may make for a more contentious debate.

That's why the early learning "gap analysis" (pdf) released today will prove so crucial to the council's deliberations, as it fleshes out the scope of the challenge the city faces. According to the report, there are currently about 12,280 three and four year olds living in Seattle, of which between 27 percent and 37 percent are not enrolled in any sort of formal preschool or child care program. The report makes no effort to speculate on the quality of existing programs, but it seems likely that many would not meet the "high quality" standard the council will ultimately adopt.

And the enrollment disparity based on income appears to be as pronounced as one might expect. The report estimates that 71 percent of children in families above 400 percent of the federal poverty line are enrolled in nursery or preschool, compared to only 54 percent those in low-income families below 200 percent of the poverty line. Likewise, 72 percent of children living north of the Ship Canal are enrolled in preschool, compared to 58 percent in Central and Southeast Seattle, and only 48 percent in Southwest Seattle. And this enrollment disparity persists despite the funding of about 2,000 seats aimed at low-income children via federal Head Start, state ECEAP, and city Step Ahead programs.

Wait lists for otherwise qualified children at subsidized early learning centers often equal more than half their total capacity. So there is clearly a lot of unmet demand.

So how many children would a Seattle universal preschool program serve, and what would be the cost to the taxpayers? That's still hard to say, as the data available is anything but firm and the costs will be driven by our definition of "universal." Not every parent would choose to enroll their children in preschool starting at age three, regardless of the cost or quality, and about 2,000 low-income children are already being served by federal, state, and city funded programs, so they should represent little or no additional cost. While the goal is to provide universal access to high quality preschool, there will likely some sort of sliding-scale subsidy based on percentage of the poverty line. How steep we slide that scale, and at what level the full subsidy kicks in will help determine the final price tag on the program.

But don't expect the city to implement preschool on the cheap. The report estimates that current programs cost between $11,300 and $14,700 per student per year, and there isn't much room for a discount. All the current research emphasizes that only high-quality programs return the results proponents tout. More on what "high quality" means, and the results it produces, in a future post.

 

Comments (22) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Damn, daycare is expensive. Hey Mayor, you want to do something about the gender pay-gap in Seattle? Find some money to enable moms to avoid 4 year gaps in their resumes.
Posted by wxPDX on January 30, 2014 at 2:13 PM · Report this
2
The preschool my daughters went to cost just a hair under $3000 annually (that was for a three hour daily class). The teachers had Washington State teaching certificates and the class size was limited to 18 pupils with two teachers per class.

So are you talking about day care or preschool? Cause for kids between the ages of 2-4, anything more than three hours quits being school, it becomes day care.
Posted by Westside forever on January 30, 2014 at 2:43 PM · Report this
Clara T 3
Totally agree *high quality* preschool is absolutely key. A good Montessori preschool (for instance, among other very good pedagogical models) is an entirely different thing than 9 four year-olds shaking 8 headless Barbie dolls at each other in the converted basement of somebody's Cape Cod in Crown Hill. One is developmental magic; the other just lets the parents go to work.
Posted by Clara T on January 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM · Report this
4
Why is "gap analysis" in quotes? Are you implying this isn't a true gap analysis?
Posted by bigyaz on January 30, 2014 at 2:55 PM · Report this
Banna 5
"Gap Analysis Reveals Large Unmet Demand for Affordable, High-Quality X in Y" is a true statement for almost any value of X and Y. Almost nothing is affordable and high-quality, and if it is, it's not convenient.
Posted by Banna http://www.ucp.org on January 30, 2014 at 3:39 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 8
Blame unnecessary regulation for this one. I've seen immigrants on the East Coast have to hide a daycare center because they couldn't afford a permit and all the things the corporate-state thinks a daycare or preschool should have (like being in a business zoned building) They even had an RN and former kindergarden teachers (or the equivalent of that in the Philippines) working at that place, but if the government found out people had the audacity to teach their children without the government's permission, someone would have been sent to jail.

If left to their own devices and freed from the meddling of the corporate-owned state, the people would be able to provide for themselves. Unfortunately, the statists disagree and want to run everyone's life, even if that means poverty, injustice and sub-par education.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on January 30, 2014 at 4:12 PM · Report this
9
How about we fund full day kindergarten first for all schools in Seattle...
Posted by beef on January 30, 2014 at 4:33 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 10
@8: "Blame unnecessary regulation for this one"

Wait, didn't you just say this:
And that's why we need better child protective services.

Of course, you also think collectivism is bad but unions are good so you are obviously a bit addled
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on January 30, 2014 at 5:34 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 12
@10First, Collectivism means political collectivism, not groups of people simply coming together voluntarily. Here is a video explaining it to you that I hope you can understand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JlkGCI_S…
Second, unions are fine as long as they are voluntary, which is why most Libertarians are against right to work laws.
Third, I'm a minarchist. I believe government should exist only to protect people and their property from harm (and by property I include the environment, which is everyone's property) Everything else should be voluntary. Roads need to be fixed? Raise the gas taxes, because if people CHOOSE to drive they have consented to use the roads. Kids need education? Let parents and the community come together, without government coercion, to educate them.
Hence, it's right to have child protective services because children must be protected from harm and WHEN we achieve a minarchist society child protection will still be a part of it.
I apologize if these simple ideas are over your head.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on January 30, 2014 at 9:05 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 13
@12 Oh, those ideas are simple all right.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on January 30, 2014 at 9:14 PM · Report this
14
@12 your funny do go on.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on January 30, 2014 at 9:31 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 15
@13
Yes, these ideas are simple to people with at least average intelligence.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on January 30, 2014 at 9:35 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 16
@14
You are a prime example of why I am no longer a Marxist: the ideas of voluntaryism, Left-libertarianism, minarchism and anarchism are so irrefutable that opponents of said ideas never can debate them effectively. Instead they resort to childish rebuttals that border on the ad hominem. When I was a Marxist people could debate and find the holes in that logic easily...now? People hear these ideas and say something akin to "we'll...you're a poo-poo head!" and walk away, with no intelligent or logically counter-argument offered.

Thank you for proving me right.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on January 30, 2014 at 9:41 PM · Report this
SchmuckyTheCat 17
You're kind of idiocy went out of style in the 19th century. We gave up on those ideas because they don't work. Period. Full stop. Grow up.

The reason unions aren't voluntary is because it allows freeloaders to piggyback on collective bargaining. If you get added value from your labor to an employer because of a union, you owe something to the union. It's pretty much never the case that isn't true unless you are in denial about prevailing wages and benefits.
Posted by SchmuckyTheCat on January 30, 2014 at 10:38 PM · Report this
SchmuckyTheCat 18
Also, on topic, @9 has the same question I do. We don't even fund Kindergarten in this city. Parents pay for it and it is not cheap. How have we moved on to funding preschool without funding Kindergarten? Sure, let's have the conversation but Kindergarten needs come first.
Posted by SchmuckyTheCat on January 30, 2014 at 10:43 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 19
@17 and 18
First, unions are voluntary: I personally don't like them and so I don't work in a union profession. And those "19th century" ideas are alive and well in Singapore, Chile and many other countries with ease of doing business, as many nations with classic liberal parties in the majority.
As for Kindgergarten, like I said, it isn't cheap because the corporate-owned state regulates the living daylights out of it to the point that it has to be expensive. They should only regulate safety, nothing more.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on January 31, 2014 at 3:00 AM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 20
@16: "Left-libertarianism, minarchism and anarchism are so irrefutable that opponents of said ideas never can debate them effectively."

Sure we can. Let's take a look back at your simple ideas @12:

"Collectivism means political collectivism, not groups of people simply coming together voluntarily."

Politics - political parties, political movements, etc., etc., is people coming together voluntarily as well. You are applying a rigidly narrow definition of collectivism.

Second, unions are fine as long as they are voluntary, which is why most Libertarians are against right to work laws.

As @17 notes, within most workplaces a "voluntary union" system will not work. Unions are able to negotiate good wages for their members only when they are strong and represent the majority of workers. In Denmark, for example, where "trade unions play a pivotal role in the Danish labour market." Now, you can stamp your foot and claim that large trade unions are not really "collectivisim" at which point I will direct you here.

Third, I'm a minarchist. I believe government should exist only to protect people and their property from harm (and by property I include the environment, which is everyone's property).

So: police, armed forces, fire services, emergency medical services, preventative health care, doctors and hospitals, environmental protection, workplace health and safety, regulation of water and air pollution, product safety regulations, road and highway safety regulations, child protective services. Oh, and a robust civil law system as well. I could go on. That's some tiny government right there.

Everything else should be voluntary. Roads need to be fixed? Raise the gas taxes, because if people CHOOSE to drive they have consented to use the roads.

Hang on now, I didn't choose to drive on THAT road. Or THOSE roads. I only choose to drive on THESE roads. I am not paying to pave one square inch down the road past my driveway.

Also, for extra credit, please reconcile this statement with your earlier one stating that "government should exist to protect people and their property from harm," i.e. the whiplash and busted suspension I get from driving on one of your crappy, poorly maintained roads.

Kids need education? Let parents and the community come together, without government coercion, to educate them.

Government involvement in education is nothing more than parents and the community coming together to educate kids. Structures such as public (or private) schools and boards of education are nothing more than stable organizations created to manage this - it's a lot more efficient and effective. And in most jurisidictions parents still have the ability to opt out of public schools, to homeschool, to unschool, etc.

Hence, it's right to have child protective services because children must be protected from harm and WHEN we achieve a minarchist society child protection will still be a part of it.

Considering the list of things that government will still have to do if it is to be truly effective at just the task of "protecting people and their property from harm," I doubt that any such government could be described as minimal.

I apologize if these simple ideas are over your head.

They are simple because they are simplistic. Sophmoric. Unsophisticated. Untainted by any contact with the reality of the world, of society, of people and how they really live and behave.

And if you scratch the surface, these ideas are usually just a thin veneer over the big idea: selfishness. Fear that someone, somewhere, is getting something that you had to pay for. Your desire for government to protect people and their property is really just you wanting to protect yourself and your own property; everyone else can go hang.

We can debate these sorts of ideas effectively. We just don't bother very often.
More...
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on January 31, 2014 at 7:47 AM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 22
@20
First, political collectivism means any political system that sees people not as individuals but as collectives. That IS NOT my definition but that is the definition political scientists have been using for years. If you bothered to look at the link I proved you would see that.

Second, when I say the government should protect people from that which seeks to harm them SEEKS is the operative word. Only something or someone with will can seek to harm someone, and a sickness or a fire isn't moving on a will of its own. In short, the only ethical government is one that exists only to prevent people from harming one another.

Government has no money. EVER. It can only get money through printing it or stealing it (taxation) Hence, it is unethical for government to steal your money and do God knows what with it.

Second, home schooling and private schooling, as I have said, repeatedly, are becoming harder and harder to achieve due to government regulation. The state wants a monopoly on education. But instead of banning alternatives outright they simply regulate them away, kind of the same thing Southern States do with abortion.

Here are some more links I hope you have an easy time understanding: http://www.rense.com/general81/fasc.htm

http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2008…

As for the rest of what you said, it amounts to a bunch of name calling, exactly what I would expect from a Marxist. I know because I used to be one.

I NEVER said anything about just protecting me. I want to live in a society that protects everyone and that comes together to help each other. The question is this: what is the relationship between the state and society? Can society exist without the state putting a gun to people's head and forcing them to do that which they would do anyway?

You seem to think education, healthcare, social welfare etc cannot exist without the state. And anyone who attacks NOT the social welfare programs themselves (which I already said we should keep after handing them to the people) but the state is immoral, evil, a Republican blah blah...Reminds me of a slogan: "All within the state, nothing outside the state and nothing against the state"-Benito Mussolini.

I believe we can and will provide for our communities within a voluntary society. You seem to think the state, with its police, armed IRS agents, NSA, TSA, CIA, etc is necessary to use force to steal money and then take care of the community for the people.

I could continue destroying your ideas, but it's already clear I've won...or I should say the ideas of Lysander Spooner, Karl Hess and Murray Rothbard have already won.
More...
Posted by collectivism_sucks on January 31, 2014 at 1:18 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 23
@22: If you think I am a Marxist, then we may have identified the overall issue with your thinking. You are so far deep into your anti-collectivist wonderland that anyone who doesn't agree with you is either a Marxist or a Corporatist. Not only that, but you seem to see them as just two sides of the same coin which is just... wacky.

As to my thinking "education, healthcare, social welfare etc cannot exist without the state," I have said no such thing. However, as a rational thinker I do believe that healthcare, education, social welfare etc. can be provided most efficiently and effectively through collective action. You don't disagree with me - you claim to be in favor of people working together to provide these things. Well, to quote Barney Frank, "'Government' is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together."

You ask, "can society exist without the state putting a gun to people's head and forcing them to do that which they would do anyway?" In a word, yes. It already does. No one puts a gun to my head to get me to pay my taxes. I agree to do so, voluntarily, as do the vast majority of my fellow citizens. If at any point we decided to withdraw our agreement to do so, we are free to elect a government that would adopt your minimalist approach.

I am not holding my breath for that to happen.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on January 31, 2014 at 1:52 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 24
@23
Let's say you don't pay taxes...see what happens. The IRS has armed agents and FBI backup. You are forced to pay taxes.

Second, government is NOT simply people getting together to do something. It is not a social contract if I didn't sign anything. Government is the majority ordering the minority around. If I don't want my tax payer money going to fund the war on drugs, but government decides it wants to, what choice do I have in the matter? None. If government wants to build a preschool that I have no use for and I don't want my money to go to it (granted, I would gladly donate to open a preschool) what choice do I have? None.

There is no "choice" when it comes to government. Look at it this way: you and four friends are hanging out, and they decide to get pizza. You don't want to and say you would rather keep your money. They vote, you are out voted, and they say you have to put money into the pot. You refuse to give up the money. One of your friends takes out a gun and forces you to put money into the pot. They get the pizza, and hand you a slice that you never wanted in the first place.

Now, was that you "choosing" to order the pizza? If they wanted it, why couldn't they have just ordered it without forcing you to be a part of it?

Now, fast forward to education: instead of using government to tax people (stealing) why not just fund it together voluntarily? Once government and its regulations get out of the way, running a co-op school would be easier.

As for electing pro-liberty people, that is already happening all over the country: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.co…

Libertarianism is growing in America and will continue to grow.There is nothing anyone in Seattle, a weird corner of the country (and not even a good, bohemian weird anymore) can do to stop that.

And here is a good video explaining how we are NOT the government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqoBZLSm1…
More...
Posted by collectivism_sucks on January 31, 2014 at 2:48 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 25
@24: You really think about guns A LOT, don't you? Everything happens at gunpoint. In the rational world, people usually just talk about things and come to an agreement.

Besides, why would I refuse to pay taxes? I like paying taxes. I like the services I get from the government. I like that other people get government services too. I don't need welfare but I am happy that those who do can get some assistance.

This is when you say "Aha! So you would pay voluntarily, so you don't need the government to require it. I win!" Not so fast.

Let's look at education, for example. You seem to think that funding education should be left to those with children who need educating. This ignores the fact that society as a whole benefits from having an educated populace. It is in the best interest of everybody that young people are well educated. So, everyone participates.

What about roads? You've said that only people who choose to drive on roads should have to pay for them. But even people who don't own cars benefit from roads. To give just one example: you may walk to the grocery store every day, but how does your food get there?

Yes, yes, the trucking company could increase their prices to cover the fact that they are paying for the roads, and then the grocery store will bump their prices, but at the end of the day you are still paying for the roads. And do you really think a private corporation is going to charge you less than you are paying right now?

The point is, any effective "voluntary payment" system along the lines that you propose would, inevitably, end up looking a lot like what we call government. Say everyone on my street belonged to one voluntary organization that funded and managed the schools, another that funded and managed road maintenance, another that funded and managed fire protection service, etc. etc. Pretty quickly we would come to the realization that it would work better if we had just one organization to manage all of it. Reduced overheads, economies of scale, etc. etc.

Then we'd talk to folks the next street over and end up doing the same thing. And so on, and so on, and hey presto! We've reinvented government.
More...
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on January 31, 2014 at 3:35 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 26

@25
First, I never said only people with children should pay for education. In fact, I said I would gladly donate to help other people's education, even though I don't have children myself.

As for taxation, I'll say it again: if someone says "you know what, I don't want to pay for the war on drugs, endless wars overseas and corporate welfare. So let me only give 50% of what I actually owe the government from now on until they stop it with the endless wars, war on drugs, and corporate welfare" What's going to happen to that guy?
Tax evasion: straight to jail.

And yes, I think we as a society should do what government does...JUST WITHOUT THE "DON'T PAY YOU GO TO JAIL" thing government has going for it, and without any government using aggression against anyone who is not using aggression against anyone's life or property.
(Again, aggression includes fraud and hurting the environment)

And yes, I want to reinvent government: by making it optional, non-aggressive and voluntary. The only thing a government should do is prevent aggression. If someone wants to smoke weed, no government should stop them, because they aren't using aggression against anyone. If someone wants to drive their car without seat belts...are they idiots? Yes. Are they using aggression against anyone? No. So they should be left alone. Likewise, if and when education and social welfare are run by the people and not the state, if some douche bag doesn't want to give anything to help educate kids or help the poor...is he or she a douche? Damn right. Is he or she deserving of peer pressure to convince them to give? Yes. But ultimately, are they committing an act of aggression by not paying? No. So, we should let them be cheap selfish douchebags.

And if welfare, social security, education etc were taken out of government and run by voluntary donations, what happens to that money? It's used to pay for welfare, social security and education...BUT CAN'T BE USED TO PAY FOR WARS OF AGGRESSION. Every tax dollar you pay gives the corporate-owned state 70 cents to blow up some kids in Pakistan on the command of George W Obama. Under a minarchist society, this won't happen because that money will be away from government.

Also, if those programs were run by people and not government, they would be run a lot more effectively. For example, 75% of welfare money now goes to the administration costs of welfare and into some paper-pushers six figure salary, while 25% goes to actually help families in need. While private charities are the reverse, with about 75% going to help the poor. If welfare was turned into a voluntary community program funded not by forced taxation, but through voluntary donations and run by the people as a non-profit co-op, it would be a lot more effective. Government is by its nature ineffective because it only answers to a few oligarchs. Under a voluntary society, it would answer to all those who voluntary to make it run.

We are not the government. If we were, then every action of police brutality would be self-mutilation and nothing more. Every person drafter into war would have done it to themselves. Every person in jail for smoking weed would have put themselves in jail. We all know this is not the case because, deep down, we all know the corporate-state is not on our side, never was and never will be. The only solution is to replace the corporate-state with a free and voluntary society.

"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years"-Lysander Spooner, father of Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.
More...
Posted by collectivism_sucks on January 31, 2014 at 11:24 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy