TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Government Funded Daycare program
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Government Funded Daycare program

Allright peeps im writing a paper on this, im almost done and i just wanted to feel the waters on what people think. Basically i want to know how many of you are actually against having a government funded national daycare program. All studies have found that early interventions, specially for lower income children have great positive effects. Some argument the effects are shortlived and fade out as soon as 3rd grade but most of the fading effect is explained by family situations and quality of latter educational centers. There are proven economic gains also such as more single mothers entering the work force, and couples being able to juggle work/children more effectively and thus increasing productivity.

Anyone have arguments against? I want to have a balanced review of the issue in my paper, but arguments against are far and few in between and usually don't hold up.

Anyone interested in looking at current models for implementation of a nation wide daycare system can look at the Carolina Abecederian and Headstart in the US. In Canada there's Quebec's recently implemented province wide government funded daycare program.

I'm mostly ignorant, but I suspect (and you imply) I would support it on the basis that it gives women more freedom (less pressure on the woman to stay at home to take care of the kids if this kind of support structure was avaible)

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I'm mostly ignorant, but I suspect (and you imply) I would support it on the basis that it gives women more freedom (less pressure on the woman to stay at home to take care of the kids if this kind of support structure was avaible)

That is one of the benefits that it's been found to have. In places were this has been implemented, in Quebec for example, there was a surge of mothers coming into the labour force after the implementation.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX That is one of the benefits that it's been found to have. In places were this has been implemented, in Quebec for example, there was a surge of mothers coming into the labour force.

Then the argument against it is that a whole hoard of kids are being raised in an inferior living environment, as day care has always been. It may be better than being left alone, but it might also lead some mothers to an easy choice that they do not have to make, but choose to, at the expense of their children.

quote:

Originally posted by Inconspicuous Then the argument against it is that a whole hoard of kids are being raised in an inferior living environment, as day care has always been. It may be better than being left alone, but it might also lead some mothers to an easy choice that they do not have to make, but choose to, at the expense of their children.

Yes, but this is only in the case of low quality day care. If day care is public service there is the ability for parents and companies which depend on parents for their work force to force the government into keeping acceptable quality in day care centers. This doesn't happen in private for profit day cares. You could argue that 'market pressures' would drive quality in for profit centers, but it's been shown that parents have a hard time assessing quality of these centers and are more reluctant to pressure them than if it were government funded.

The Quebec program has also shown that it is economically possible to keep decent quality day care centers at a province wide level. So it is not impossible, it is just demanding.

Personally i am against it, i choose to stay at home and raise my kid because i feel it would be better for my kid and i have the option because my husband works. Government funded daycare means we will be paying taxes for other families to recieve a break, not us. I would rather keep that money and put it towards my own family. Pick up what i'm putting down?

quote:

Originally posted by wienerschnitzel Personally i am against it, i choose to stay at home and raise my kid because i feel it would be better for my kid and i have the option because my husband works. Government funded daycare means we will be paying taxes for other families to recieve a break, not us. I would rather keep that money and put it towards my own family. Pick up what i'm putting down?

Excellent point, naturally you think that people who have no children shouldn't pay taxes towards schools as well ?

The best day care is not as beneficial for the child as is a good mother. There is bad day care and there are bad mothers, but on the whole, being at home & raising your child will always be better than day care.

quote:

Originally posted by wienerschnitzel i choose to stay at home and raise my kid because i feel it would be better for my kid

It is, and [not being patronizing] good for you.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Excellent point, naturally you think that people who have no children shouldn't pay taxes towards schools as well ?

yeah it's simular, however, if i didn't have children but was planning on it in the future, then i wouldn't mind so much knowing that i would recieve that help when the time came, however, if i knew i wasn't going to be having children, then i wouldn't necessarly want to be paying for other childrens taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by Inconspicuous The best day care is not as beneficial for the child as is a good mother. There is bad day care and there are bad mothers, but on the whole, being at home & raising your child will always be better than day care. It is, and [not being patronizing] good for you.

i just feel bad for the mothers that don't have a choice, because i do think (or at least hope) that more would do the same if they didn't have to work to support their family for ex. single mums. i know alot of women want to have careers and a family and that is a personal choice, but i gave up my career to have a family.. i think being a mum is SERIOUS BUISNESS and i know that staying at home with my kid/s will help give them a strong foundation in the future, which imo is priceless.

That is a valid point weiner, but what to do with mothers that don't have enough resources to stay at home? How do you propose to solve their situation?

quote:

Originally posted by venomX That is a valid point weiner, but what to do with mothers that don't have enough resources to stay at home? How do you propose to solve their situation?

you also have to consider that more people might decide to have more children if not faced with the decision of either taking care of them or paying for someone to take care of them.

quote:

Originally posted by Inconspicuous you also have to consider that more people might decide to have more children if not faced with the decision of either taking care of them or paying for someone to take care of them.

There has been many programs state wide, and nation wide (Headstart for example) and there has not been any consistent relationship between the creation of the programs and higher birth rates. Mind you there is info for headstart that dates 40 years back, and there has been no relationship.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX There has been many programs state wide, and nation wide (Headstart for example) and there has not been any consistent relationship between the creation of the programs and higher birth rates. Mind you there is info for headstart that dates 40 years back, and there has been no relationship.

That may be the case, but logically, it is still a possibility.

at the very least, it's a point to make and then refute. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

quote:

Originally posted by Inconspicuous That may be the case, but logically, it is still a possibility.

True but stepping out of your house everyday is a risk, yet you don't stay in your house to avoid possible risks. I believe that the possibility of slight increase in population due to the implementation of a program like this (which is very unlikely) is not reason enough to not implement a program of this nature. The benefits still outweigh the possibility of a slight population increase.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX That is a valid point weiner, but what to do with mothers that don't have enough resources to stay at home? How do you propose to solve their situation?

i don't propose to solve their situation at all... you wanted an argument and i gave you one from my personal perspective.. i'm not suggesting that this is the way things SHOULD BE but what i mentioned is what would be in my best interest.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX True but stepping out of your house everyday is a risk, yet you don't stay in your house to avoid possible risks. I believe that the possibility of slight increase in population due to the implementation of a program like this (which is very unlikely) is not reason enough to not implement a program of this nature. The benefits still outweigh the possibility of a slight population increase.

Well, the issue would not be a major population increase. It would be an issue of a population increase within those demographic groups which would make use of such a program. While that may not represent a huge part of the population, and, thus, not represent major population increase on the whole, it might be a significant change within that group, increasing the cost of a program at a faster rate than expected.

quote:

Originally posted by wienerschnitzel i don't propose to solve their situation at all... you wanted an argument and i gave you one from my personal perspective.. i'm not suggesting that this is the way things SHOULD BE but what i mentioned is what would be in my best interest.

So basically your saying it's not your problem so you don't care for it? Even if poorer people could stay at home and raise their child, positive outcomes for this type of care are directly correlated with the parent's educational level. This would mean that for people near or under the line of poverty it would actually be better that the children attend a decent quality care center than being raise by their parents. It's sad that you would leave those people be just because it is not your problem. Oh well.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX So basically your saying it's not your problem so you don't care for it? Even if poorer people could stay at home and raise their child, positive outcomes for this type of care are directly correlated with the parent's educational level. This would mean that for people near or under the line of poverty it would actually be better that the children attend a decent quality care center than being raise by their parents. It's sad that you would leave those people be just because it is not your problem. Oh well.

You asked for arguments for the other side. She gave you an argument for the other side.

quote:

Originally posted by Inconspicuous Well, the issue would not be a major population increase. It would be an issue of a population increase within those demographic groups which would make use of such a program. While that may not represent a huge part of the population, and, thus, not represent major population increase on the whole, it might be a significant change within that group, increasing the cost of a program at a faster rate than expected.

True. But then one has also to consider the poverty cycle breaking effect of a program like this. People that are subjected to good early education are more likely to get more education, be less involved in criminal activity and have higher incomes. All these are correlated with better life prospects. High education of parents is directly correlated with better outcomes for kids, etc... You can notice that even if there is an increase in that particular demographic there is also a decrease going on due to children of parents that benefited from early interventions being less prone to need to participate in public day care because they would have more options available to them.

quote:

Originally posted by Inconspicuous You asked for arguments for the other side. She gave you an argument for the other side.

Didn't know it was just for the sake of argument. Nevermind my comment then.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX So basically your saying it's not your problem so you don't care for it? Even if poorer people could stay at home and raise their child, positive outcomes for this type of care are directly correlated with the parent's educational level. This would mean that for people near or under the line of poverty it would actually be better that the children attend a decent quality care center than being raise by their parents. It's sad that you would leave those people be just because it is not your problem. Oh well.

WTF like inconspicuous said, it was for an argument for the other side. I resent you suggesting i don't care about people near or below the line of poverty, i don't believe i know you. It sounds like this subject is a little personal for you so if that is the case, maybe you should step aside, look at both arguments and make sure you gave each side a fair argument for the sake of your paper.

quote:

Originally posted by wienerschnitzel WTF like inconspicuous said, it was for an argument for the other side. I resent you suggesting i don't care about people near or below the line of poverty, i don't believe i know you. It sounds like this subject is a little personal for you so if that is the case, maybe you should step aside, look at both arguments and make sure you gave each side a fair argument for the sake of your paper.

He's from Red Deer... he has simultaneous Calgary and Edmonton envy!

(yes I'm being an ass)

quote:

Originally posted by wienerschnitzel WTF like inconspicuous said, it was for an argument for the other side. I resent you suggesting i don't care about people near or below the line of poverty, i don't believe i know you. It sounds like this subject is a little personal for you so if that is the case, maybe you should step aside, look at both arguments and make sure you gave each side a fair argument for the sake of your paper.

I misunderstood your comment, I didn't know it was just for the sake of argument. No need to get touchy feely, im not attached to my line of arguing at all. If a valid reason is raised that i cannot counter i will consider it and research on it. That's the whole point of this thread.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.