When we know what works and can be implemented for the greatest good, why not do that instead of embarking on yet another “pilot” program that would most likely show what we have known for a long time: Teachers, who are well-prepared in early childhood education, paid as professionals and supported as they implement best…More
You are viewing the most recent posts on this topic.
The backers of Proposition 1A cannot see the contradictions in their own advertising [“Seattle Prop 1B’s design get city’s youngest citizens off to best start,” Opinion, Oct. 20]. The top of a recent flyer reads: “Research shows retaining experienced teachers is critical to early childhood brain development.” Below is this sentence: “But Proposition…More
As a longtime member of the League of Women Voters of Seattle-King County (LWVS-KC) active in education issues, I was deeply disappointed by the LWVS-KC Board’s decision to oppose the city’s quality preschool program — Proposition 1B [“The Times recommends to vote for Proposition 1B to bolster quality preschool in Seattle,” Opinion, Oct. 8]. This decision…More
As part of a three-part series on early learning, the Education Lab blog recently asked readers to share their thoughts on the idea of expanded pre-kindergarten and whether a city-sponsored program would meet the needs of their families.
The blog received dozens of thoughtful responses to the call out. Below is a selection of reader answers. Head over to the Education Lab blog for additional reader responses, and an additional question asking whether readers would send a child to such a pre-K program.
Also, The Seattle Times recently published its endorsement on the two competing pre-K ballot measures on the Nov. 4 ballot. The Times supports Proposition 1B over 1A, writing that it’s the one measure that “actually creates, and funds, this promising idea.”
Q: Do you agree preschool should be a universal offering, available to all families regardless of income? Why or why not?
Yes, as long as it is actually universal. I do not believe in the middle class subsidizing the poor while still having to pay full or marginally reduced price for my own children. I have 3-year-old twins, and this is of great interest and importance to me. I will most likely vote against the subsidized pre-K initiative.
— Scott Jeffries, Seattle
No. I think we should spend our taxpayer money on boosting the quality of our elementary through high-school education instead. We need smaller classrooms and more individual help for students who need it — too many are falling through the cracks. We should still keep Head Start for the under-privileged.
— Lisa Stultz, Anacortes
The excellent article “Ballot proposals offer 2 plans for improving pre-K in Seattle” [Local News, Oct. 9] provided a good analysis of early learning ballot measures Propositions 1A and 1B. But I take exception to the article when it states that Proposition 1A “would cover children from infancy through age 5.” It certainly won’t…More
Letter writer Jack McCarthy didn’t fully explain why parents of disadvantaged families are unable to provide their children with pre-K school as well as education support during their school years [“Good preschool is an ‘academic rocket boost’,” Northwest Voices, Aug. 11]. Many disadvantaged parents are poorly educated themselves and might not value education as…More
The Seattle Times is right to recognize the value of high-quality preschool instruction based on models tested elsewhere in the nation [“In November, make the right choice for universal pre-K in Seattle,” Opinion, July 30]. Rice University research by Betty Hart and Todd Risley found that, by age three, children born into economically disadvantaged…More
Those of us who have been caring for young children over the past several decades have placed Initiative I-107 on the ballot. I doubt that The Seattle Times consulted any of us before penning Friday’s editorial [“Voters should thwart attempts to hijack mayor’s pre-K mandate,” Opinion, June 19]. If you work and have a…More
More education funding needed So now Seattle is moving to provide more preschool education for all its 3- and 4-year-old residents. [“Editorial: Preschool investment,” Opinion, Aug. 26.] Bravo! Apparently, older kids will arrive at school with backpacks filled. Bravo again! Will great programs will greet them? Perhaps not so much. When will we accept the need for…More
Build federal-state partnership The Times rightly backs increased investments in preschool [“Editorial: Preschool trickles up,” Opinion, May 19]. But Washington doesn’t have to go it alone. It’s about fairness. Just 48 percent of low-income children enter kindergarten school-ready, compared to three-fourths of higher-income kids. Quality pre-K levels the playing field, especially for poor kids. And it…More