Letters to the Editor
AlecsMom
Published Letters: 776 Editor's Choice: 21
-
@mc
[Read the article: Harvard for toddlers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I understand that many areas have very differing rates for childcare. However, in this case, it is quite clear that the model that Google opted for was one that was NEEDLESSLY expensive. The price hike is almost 70% above the previous rates.
The irony of it all, is that The Woods program is so expensive that parents, despite paying approx. 30K per year per child, are going to experience a DROP in personnel and hours at the facility....because it's all just too damn expensive! Duh!
I'm a teacher. I have a preschooler. I don't pay anything CLOSE to 25K per year (I live in South Jersey). A little more than half or so of that number. However, I know what a decent preschool program looks like and who workes there. Guess what? You don't need a whole lot of staff with college degrees or training overseas. Just a child-centered program with experienced and kind people who like children. Throw in a some appropriate learning activities and spaces to work/play with other kids and you've got a decent program where MOST (not all) children will do well.
Frankly, anyone who wants much more than that for a little kid is a bit of a mark. They are asking to be conned which is what has happened here. Luckily, Susan Wojcicki has the funds to experiment with any and all educational programs that she likes. The rest of the working stiffs without trust funds at Google are quite clearly screwed out of a real benefit that the company COULD offer, but simply chooses not to.
-
@elainea
[Read the article: Harvard for toddlers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mass. is one of the better states though for reschool. Low-income families (not you I gather) can get tuition support.
In addition, I did a check on preschools in the boston area. There's a decent link. Is this list government subsidized or private?
http://massachusettspreschools.org/boston-metro-preschools/
The prices on the list I found for Boston area are far closer to what I pay (and are charged in Philly for example. I used to live there so I've checked). Yours is about the most pricey but I know it can go higher.
-
@mc
[Read the article: Harvard for toddlers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Where (really) are you getting your info? I copied a number of links that clearly state that Kinderplex (CCLC-run at Google and other locations) was significantly less expensive. Google provided the subsidy on top of the cost parents paid and there weren't any problems. Only when Google opted for The Woods did the subsidy balloon (to $37K). That's when it became unmanageable.
How are you not getting the picture? Google purposely chose a far more expensive program to replace CCLC-run Kinderplex. Every article and report says the exact, same thing.
As for your other argument, I've tried to explain to you and others: A good program for preschool doesn't need all the bells and whistles. Multiple grad degrees and B.A.'s are not needed. Huge new building space with the latest-and-newest isn't needed either. If that's what YOU want to pay for, go ahead. Don't imply that it is needed or even greatly benefits the children. It doesn't.
It has been very clearly explained in multiple reports that The Woods program at Google had all sorts of LUXURIES. Hey, great for those who can afford it. As a "benefit" for employees? It sucks.
What Google should do: Provide a subsidized daycare benefit that will help MOST employees access daycare. 30K per child is pretty much out the window and frankly, the shareholders shouldn't have to pay for an educational experiment that isn't even an employee benefit anymore.
-
@David
[Read the article: Harvard for toddlers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LOL! I also chose to stay at home for a while. My little guy has to go to school now but it is what it is. I loved being at home too.
-
@T Suarez
[Read the article: McCain dismisses Maliki timetable talk ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bitter much? Yeah, I thought so.
In case you cared, this thread is about Maliki requesting AGAIN that the US offer a timetable for withdrawal of troops, directly contravening plans that both Bush and McCain cling to like a drowning man to a life preserver. Thoughts on that?
-
McCain is in a Pickle
[Read the article: Quote of the day from Dan Balz]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Bush tax cuts for the rich and subsequent outrageous spending have made our economy a total wreck. It's predicated on the belief that one can indefinitely fund stuff without paying for it. Total garbage. I think McCain knows this deep down but how to say it in such a way that everyone on the Right doesn't get offended?
The rest of us in the real world know that we have to make priorities. Me, I say let's save 150 billion (at least) and get the hell out of Iraq. It's a start.
-
So what's the problem?
[Read the article: Obama and late-term abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As has been pointed out over and over (and the authors affirm), most 3rd trimester abortions ARE for physical health reasons. So why the kibbititzing over psychological issues which only serve to paint Democrats as depraved loonies who don't care about viable babies? Perhaps if we stopped fighting battles very few (if any!) are actually having, we could get down to the serious business of sustaining a woman's right to reproductive choice and fending off the real threats, like Alito and Roberts.
-
@T Suarez
[Read the article: McCain dismisses Maliki timetable talk ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It hurts. I know it hurts. Too bad, so sad. Move on. Hillary has.
-
@Steve Kelner
[Read the article: Obama and late-term abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well said. "Viability" for me is the big difference and one that seems fair under the law as well.
-
McCain's Strategy
[Read the article: John McCain's radical tax plan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's clear now that John McCain understands that he is deeply disliked and distrusted by his Republican base. I assume that someone on his team explained that he simply must throw this base a bone and that is what he's doing here. However, he will never be able to sell this bullsh*t to the rest of America. He will be crucified in the coming months as the economy continues to limp forward and hardworking Americans faced with diminshing job prospects ask the question, "What are you going to do for ME?"