<p>What do you think?</p>
<p>[Should</a> Upper Middle Class Tots Get Subsidized Student Loans for Pre-School? | Observer](<a href=“http://observer.com/2013/08/should-upper-middle-class-tots-get-subsidized-student-loans-for-pre-school/]Should”>Should Upper Middle Class Tots Get Subsidized Student Loans for Pre-School? | Observer)</p>
<p>One of the important things for people to remember (many people on this board included) is that “preschool” also encompasses “day care” - and does in this article. So, we are not only talking fancy, 2 hour a day, 2 days a week preschool, but quality early childhood placement for hours a day, many days a week for children.</p>
<p>My thoughts? Everyone should have access to GOOD early ed placement - not just those who can afford it. Which probably means there needs to be better regulation universally in the U.S. over what happens in these settings. However, the idea of racking up debt at this point is not something that bodes well with me - is NOT a positive for most Americans.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s a good idea to borrow money for pre-school. AFAIK, the main benefits of ECE are for kids from lower earning families, from families with less emphasis on education, etc. </p>
<p>That said, this is a different issue than support for working families, for single mothers or fathers.</p>
<p>Anybody remember the Tracy Ullman spoof of admission interview for a preschooler? It was beyond hilarious.</p>
<p>Loans for Prek…ahem…how will that little tyke get their own PIN:)</p>
<p>thought this was a joke! But apparently not. I like how the program, designed for middle and upper middle class families, specifically because " too often, quality child care is out of reach for middle class families," yet the headline only references “Upper middle class”</p>
<p>either way, my view is expressed in the article:</p>
<p>
</p>