• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Nobel Prize winner says public preschool programs should start at birth

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
66,075
Reaction score
47,021
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...6c_story.html?utm_term=.f452ae59fbde#comments

were i king, i would break the cycle of poverty/government dependence by placing contraceptive drugs in the water supply, issuing government authorized birthing permits (and the antidote) to only those demonstrating a reasonable ability to raise healthy children expected to have an opportunity to succeed
my friends and family - while emphatically shaking their heads - insist that would never be allowed to happen

so, here is the next best public policy effort which would be expected to eliminate the cycle of poverty: enroll all high poverty/low income children in high-quality child care facilities from infancy (8 weeks) until they reach kindergarten; teaching them for five days a week, 50 weeks per year

Heckman's research revealed that "Children in such zero-to-five programs are more likely to graduate from high school, less likely to be incarcerated than their counterparts who stayed home or enrolled in low-quality programs, had higher IQs and were healthier during the course of their lives"

Children enrolled in the programs got regular medical checkups, giving their families a better chance of addressing problems early. And because the children were cared for full-time, their mothers — most of whom were single parents — were more likely to get further education and advance at work, boosting their income.

“It has two generations’ impact,” Heckman said.

being an econometrician, (he won the 2000 nobel for economics), Heckman has estimated that the return on the public's investment will be approximately 13% long-term
here, he summarizes what constitutes a high-quality care facility: "Heckman said the defining characteristic of a high-quality program, more than a certain staffing ratio or training regimen, is empathetic adults who engage meaningfully with their young charges, giving them personalized attention as they grow and develop."

something is needed to break the cycle of poverty, as we have seen multiple generations raised in public housing, living on a check brought by the postman. without offering the good guidance that their parents are unable to provide, why should we expect the next generation to succeed
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...6c_story.html?utm_term=.f452ae59fbde#comments

were i king, i would break the cycle of poverty/government dependence by placing contraceptive drugs in the water supply, issuing government authorized birthing permits (and the antidote) to only those demonstrating a reasonable ability to raise healthy children expected to have an opportunity to succeed
my friends and family - while emphatically shaking their heads - insist that would never be allowed to happen

so, here is the next best public policy effort which would be expected to eliminate the cycle of poverty: enroll all high poverty/low income children in high-quality child care facilities from infancy (8 weeks) until they reach kindergarten; teaching them for five days a week, 50 weeks per year

Heckman's research revealed that "Children in such zero-to-five programs are more likely to graduate from high school, less likely to be incarcerated than their counterparts who stayed home or enrolled in low-quality programs, had higher IQs and were healthier during the course of their lives"



being an econometrician, (he won the 2000 nobel for economics), Heckman has estimated that the return on the public's investment will be approximately 13% long-term
here, he summarizes what constitutes a high-quality care facility: "Heckman said the defining characteristic of a high-quality program, more than a certain staffing ratio or training regimen, is empathetic adults who engage meaningfully with their young charges, giving them personalized attention as they grow and develop."

something is needed to break the cycle of poverty, as we have seen multiple generations raised in public housing, living on a check brought by the postman. without offering the good guidance that their parents are unable to provide, why should we expect the next generation to succeed

I like your idea better. But the nobel guy's is ok to.
 
my folks started teaching me to read when i was very little, and it made a big difference in my intellectual development. i'm for providing educational opportunities to every toddler, especially those kids whose parents can't afford to take time off of work.
 
my folks started teaching me to read when i was very little, and it made a big difference in my intellectual development. i'm for providing educational opportunities to every toddler, especially those kids whose parents can't afford to take time off of work.

When are you going to start demonstrating that here?












:mrgreen:
 
Oh great. Another Ivory Tower ding dong who has never worked a day in his life in the private sector who thinks he knows how to fix everything by spending a **** load of money America does not have.

'The more comprehensive zero-to-five programs cost about $18,500 per year for each child enrolled — more than the average public school district spends per pupil in grades K through 12. But for every dollar invested, the program generated a societal benefit of $6.30, according to Heckman.'

$18,500 per child per year?!? Just to increase their chances of them graduating from semi-useless, public high schools?

Hey you ignorant Nobel winner...how about just give that money to the child's parents and then they will not be in poverty any longer (not that I agree with that either - but it is better than his moronic idea).
DUH.


were i king, i would break the cycle of poverty/government dependence by placing contraceptive drugs in the water supply, issuing government authorized birthing permits (and the antidote) to only those demonstrating a reasonable ability to raise healthy children expected to have an opportunity to succeed
my friends and family - while emphatically shaking their heads - insist that would never be allowed to happen


so, here is the next best public policy effort which would be expected to eliminate the cycle of poverty: enroll all high poverty/low income children in high-quality child care facilities from infancy (8 weeks) until they reach kindergarten; teaching them for five days a week, 50 weeks per year

Heckman's research revealed that "Children in such zero-to-five programs are more likely to graduate from high school, less likely to be incarcerated than their counterparts who stayed home or enrolled in low-quality programs, had higher IQs and were healthier during the course of their lives"



being an econometrician, (he won the 2000 nobel for economics), Heckman has estimated that the return on the public's investment will be approximately 13% long-term
here, he summarizes what constitutes a high-quality care facility: "Heckman said the defining characteristic of a high-quality program, more than a certain staffing ratio or training regimen, is empathetic adults who engage meaningfully with their young charges, giving them personalized attention as they grow and develop."

something is needed to break the cycle of poverty, as we have seen multiple generations raised in public housing, living on a check brought by the postman. without offering the good guidance that their parents are unable to provide, why should we expect the next generation to succeed

You do realize that even the most innocuous drugs ALWAYS have some serious side effects to at least some people. You want infants and children to be ingesting contraceptive drugs? And how exactly do you know what negative effects it might have on their reproductive systems...or their health in general after such long term exposure?

I think it is INCREDIBLY dangerous to force every human being to ingest large amounts of contraceptive drugs for their entire lives.

I understand your point...but your methods are extreme to say the least, imo.
 
Last edited:
Until our school system is changed and the indoctrination can be curbed to actual teaching, there'd be no way I'd support this and I don't even have kids. Why not just have the kids taken from the birthing room right into government run schools and we can skip the whole nurture/raising stuff. I think that's what they did in Brave New World - each of the classes were bred for certain functions and the births were all done outside the womb. Academics sometimes scare me more than historical mass murderers - they have all these academic degrees, tons of references and accolades and then comes the insanity and strange views. At a 10,000 foot level sure, teaching at a younger age is more beneficial, I just don't trust our public school system to do it.
 
You would think that a Nobel prize winner would see that instead, a far simpler and fairer method to break the cycle of poverty is to bring back the social stigmas that prevented the breakup of families.
 
A very interesting article. If I had a say, I would make sure they put an emphasis on things like hands on play (water play, sand, blocks, puzzles etc...), music, arts (drawing, play do, clay, paints, crafts etc...) books, puppets, theater. I would nix anything that has to do with worksheets and benchmark testing. Raise them like the wealthy do instead of like public schools are doing right now, with a bar that all must meet in x amount of time or label them special needs and kill their interest, dreams and self esteem. A lot of schools have lost their music, art and trade programs.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...6c_story.html?utm_term=.f452ae59fbde#comments

were i king, i would break the cycle of poverty/government dependence by placing contraceptive drugs in the water supply, issuing government authorized birthing permits (and the antidote) to only those demonstrating a reasonable ability to raise healthy children expected to have an opportunity to succeed
my friends and family - while emphatically shaking their heads - insist that would never be allowed to happen

so, here is the next best public policy effort which would be expected to eliminate the cycle of poverty: enroll all high poverty/low income children in high-quality child care facilities from infancy (8 weeks) until they reach kindergarten; teaching them for five days a week, 50 weeks per year

Heckman's research revealed that "Children in such zero-to-five programs are more likely to graduate from high school, less likely to be incarcerated than their counterparts who stayed home or enrolled in low-quality programs, had higher IQs and were healthier during the course of their lives"



being an econometrician, (he won the 2000 nobel for economics), Heckman has estimated that the return on the public's investment will be approximately 13% long-term
here, he summarizes what constitutes a high-quality care facility: "Heckman said the defining characteristic of a high-quality program, more than a certain staffing ratio or training regimen, is empathetic adults who engage meaningfully with their young charges, giving them personalized attention as they grow and develop."

something is needed to break the cycle of poverty, as we have seen multiple generations raised in public housing, living on a check brought by the postman. without offering the good guidance that their parents are unable to provide, why should we expect the next generation to succeed

Why stop there or stop at highschool? Why not lifelong govt education?
 
Back
Top Bottom