Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Initiative Calling For Universal Preschool

I'll agree with Dan Weintraub of the major Sacramento newspaper that this article, published, in all places, in the LA Times, gives a pretty clear picture of what Rob Reiner's initiative will require in California. And it's not pretty.

Here's an interesting paragraph:

We don't need this. Preschool is already more "universal" in California than you might think. Somewhere within that patchwork are an estimated 70% of all the 4-year-olds in the state — about 63% in preschool centers, and a handful in family child care. The universal-preschool crowd hopes to raise that to 80%. So to get an additional 10% enrolled, taxes would pick up the bill for the other 70% as well. California's nonuniversal system already covers a bigger percentage of its 4-year-old population than Georgia's universal pre-kindergarten system, now in its 12th year.

And since I'm no fan of Rob Reiner (I usually agreed with Archie when they argued--Reiner *is* a Meathead), I'll link here to this article called, appropriately enough, Fisking Meathead.


Anonymous said...

I always knew you were a big Archie Bunker fan.

Walter E. Wallis said...

The Archie Bunker show demonstrated what liberals think of the working man.

Phyllis S said...

This is where my conspiracy theory mind kicks in. Because it plays right into my (increasingly validated) belief there is a movement afoot to get kids out of their parents control and into some sort of organized...something earlier and earlier.

Anonymous said...

I always find it odd how conservatives, or rather conservative libertarians always seem to flip flop (Oh yeah, I said it) between saying the government (or government in general, as the case may be) is essentially unable to tie it's own metaphoric shoes and saying that they may very well be capable of an immense plot to remove children from the jurisdiction of their parents and into the domain of the government.

Continuity is king, people.

Darren said...

It's not so hard to understand, Andrew. It's you LIBS who like Big Government and want to take control of the children and, hence, the future. It's the conservatives who think parents should be in charge of their children.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, but at some point you CONS (or possibly TIVES, whichever one is best suited) really need to figure out whether Big Government is either A.) utterly incompotent and therefore incapable of such a monolithic undertaking or B.) A group of sooper-dooper geniuses the likes of which are only seen occasionally in Mr. Miller's 6th period Algebra II. Otherwise the whole thing is just confusing. :-)

Darren said...

Big government is neither. However, it's much better at wielding a sledgehammer than a scalpel, which is why it should only perform sledgehammer tasks.

Anonymous said...

Why are you getting in a political discussion with one of your students?

You are a math teacher, not Polly Sci.

Politics and Religion do not belong in the classroom.

Why don't you stick with what you are good at (teaching math) and shut your pie hole about politics.

You know a few conservative talking points from FNC, but are ignorant about the interworkings of our government.

Darren said...


1. How do you know I'm any good at teaching math?

2. I don't have cable. Never watch Fox News Channel. In fact, the only news I ever watch is ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

3. On what basis do you think I'm ignorant of the inner workings of our government? Please enlighten me.

4. Andrew is more than welcome to participate in our discussions here. He's obviously got an interesting point of view and a novel way of expressing himself--why *not* engage him in a discussion? Am I to be the stereotypical math automaton?

5. As far as tasty dessert treat orifices go, I recommend the old adage "Doctor, heal thyself."