There were once so many children at Frisha Moore’s Elk Grove preschool that families filled up the waitlist. Now, one of her playgrounds and two classrooms sit empty because one key group of kids has stopped coming.
Dozens of families in recent years have opted not to enroll their 4-year-olds at Moore Learning Preschool & Child Care Center, she said. Instead, they’re putting their children in transitional kindergarten, California’s new public pre-kindergarten grade.
Even though she provides a full day of preschool, compared with transitional kindergarten that lasts only about 3.5 hours, Moore can’t compete: Public school is free. She hasn’t broken even in months and thinks about closing the preschool, “every single day.” That would remove 91 licensed child care spots from the county, including 20 for children under age 2, for whom child care options are particularly scarce.
Transitional kindergarten’s expansion is one of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature educational achievements and a key part of his legacy on how California cares for its youngest residents.
Why is AP trying to spin this negatively?
Capitalist crying crocodile tears because they can’t make money off of children anymore.
“Waaahhh! Nobody wants to buy my canned air because they cracked down on air pollution!”
More petit bourgeois whining if you ask me. Adapt your model, or close your doors and figure something else out.
Free education and care for all children vs. crippling childcare costs for a few is more than a fair trade off imo.
Free education and care for all children
… is not happening right now in California. Kids under 4 aren’t eligible, and are also more expensive to find daycare options for. That’s not going to get fixed by driving a bunch of daycares out of business.
The solution is obviously more state run care for younger children, but that’s not what exists right now. So it’s going to be a problem if a solution isn’t passed before these daycares start closing down.
Okay. And? Struggling to see the issue. I’m sure they’re qualified to work for the state if they can’t compete. They make it sound like this is a problem.
The real issue is that kids have to be at least four years old for the pre-K program, so kids younger than that have limited options if the local daycare closes. Babies and kids who aren’t potty-trained are more expensive to care for than older kids, so those parents may not be able to afford care now.
I still think the expanded pre-K is a good idea, but it would be nice if the state offered daycare subsidies or something to support the younger kids who still need daycare.
Decent point. But yeah just expand community care etc. This is one of the easiest things to do with the biggest positive community and social benefit. It’s should be a no-brainer. Sadly, too many people have something worse than no brains. Some sort of moldy diseased mush that makes them think, exploitative rent seeking behavior in childcare is a good idea. Rather than quality and sustainability.
Yeah, expanding social services for child care is almost always the right move, especially if you want people to even consider having kids. No program is perfect, and putting daycares out of business is unfortunate, but you can solve each problem as it comes up. The frustrating thing is that political opponents will just shit all over something like this and argue that it should be cancelled entirely.
California didn’t have already state funded public pre-k?
Many locations had it but I’m unsure just how much was state, and even then, they usually had poverty requirements. After all, I’m a recipient and that was over three decades ago. Iirc, that was majority federal funded.
You’re looking at a mix of local, state and federal funding, and an expansion at the state level is big for less rich parts of CA, like Bakersfield and Fresno.
public school is free
free at point of use. tax (rightfully) pays for it.
private daycare is a racket
kids under two
downsize and focus on that underserved area? thats what the fReE mArKeT wants
BS story, but there are indeed issues. I’ve got a 2 and 3 year old myself, and speaking from experience, it’s a mess that’ll put me in the red until my 3yo is 5, eating into my savings.
As mentioned, private is still the primary option for kids under 4 but we even have a lovely local program that can start at 3 if you’re poor enough (and in CA, that’s around 100k/yr lol). The problem is the time. They’re like 3 hour programs, some full time that’s still only 6 hour. With two working parents with minimal family support, that’s still a non starter if they can’t stay past 3pm.
At least my private daycare is cheap-ish at the cost of religious brainwashing, and that hasn’t seemed to matter for a kid like mine. Standards still keep them from, y’know, beating kids and whatnot.
Boo fucking hoo.
I understand that it sucks to have your business ripped out from under you, in a way, by a public option, but people struggle to afford child care. This is a necessary and good for average Americans.
Sounds like a good opportunity to move from daycare to being a preschool teacher. They already have the experience.
Putting overpriced private daycares out of business is the entire point of providing free pre-school, no?
Like, “oh no, we can’t rip people off anymore”
K, bye!
Why are they only 3.5 hours?
Morning/afternoon class schedule most likely.
Half the kids go in the morning, half go in the afternoon.
Because there’s a difference between preschool and daycare. You’re not going to get 3/4 year olds to pay attention to 6 hours of schooling.
Lemlefties, you got a political party together yet? Only 2.5 years left to go.
