On Monday, August 18, 2014, New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, announced the Newburgh Enlarged City School District as a recipient of approximately $2.8 million in funding for a full day pre-kindergarten program. In total, $340 million was awarded to 81 school districts and Community Based Organizations statewide. The NECSD is the largest recipient of funding outside of New York City.
The funding will allow the NECSD to convert the Universal Pre-K program into a full day program, as well as expand the program, by providing additional seats for students and the establishment of the NECSD Early Learning Center. The NECSD UPK program will expand half-day seats and create new seats to serve 542 students on a full time basis for the 2014-15 school year.
The funding will allow for a total of 22 Universal Pre-K classrooms in NECSD buildings as well as the creation of 11 teaching positions and 11 teaching assistant positions. The Newburgh Enlarged City School District plans to execute student placement for the 2014-2015 school year beginning in September.
“By New York State investing in the Universal Pre-K program, the Newburgh Enlarged City School District is in a better position to properly educate our students. We know an investment in the earliest learning experiences can have powerful long-term effects on young children’s emotional, cognitive, and social development. Today, NECSD takes a step closer to improving the life outcomes for our pre-kindergartners,” explained Newburgh Superintendent of Schools Dr. Roberto Padilla.
The awards are preliminary, pending the review and approval of the New York State Comptroller.
Photo by Faerie Barista
That it explains why I have below average synapses firing…I didn’t attend preschool. Explain to me how this benefits “young children’s emotional, cognitive, and social development”…and to whose advantage. More socialized education that expands the white collar welfare roles to day care providers while mom and/or dad have to make ends meet because average incomes are at 1970’s level. Why is that?
“Please sir, can I have some more?”
This will be great for the area. The children will be better educated, they will be off the streets, and it will give their parents greater flexibility in finding employment.
More educated is not “better educated” by default and neither equates to knowledge . As they are pre-k, these children are not on the streets. As per employment, you substantiated my point. How is that 50% of college grads are either under employed or not at all and yet college debt exceeds $1 trillion with defaults rising ? Orange County recently initiated SMART Program: “Using District Attorney’s Authority Against Uncooperative Parents of Truant Students”. This expansive conflating of roles doesn’t make you take pause?
Walt, it seems like you are trying to spin Universal Pre-K programs into valueless government money grabs (with sarcasm, no less). Are Pre-K programs a problem? Can you cite any long or short term evidence against the positive impacts early childhood education?
You ask “How is that 50% of college grads are either under employed or not at all and yet college debt exceeds $1 trillion with defaults rising ?” Maybe your comments would be better served if you made clear points of criticism. Something along the lines of “Colleges should be made affordable. College graduates are faced with a stuggling job market. I feel that this is because of x, y and z.”
Just my two cents…
Yes, Universal anything is a “money grab” (your language) by default when derived without individual consent. Valueless (again your language), I never said that. We are experiencing the evidence that early or advanced education reaches a point of diminishing returns when juxtaposed with negligent economic policies; policies in favor of large corporations and their supports have contributed to, i.e., the out sourcing of jobs and stock buy backs in order to prime PE ratios to the detriment of domestic capital investment and long term growth. Hence the depleted job market college grads are faced with. A job market where the only growth by numbers is in the lower paying service sectors, an exception being those related to Universal healthcare and education (both universally subsidized). Further, demographics is exasperating the issue as the ratio of those in the work force relative to those who are not is unsustainable (the former group must exponentially support the latter). Colleges are unaffordable because they are also subsidized via student loans handed out like treats without a prize in the box. The increased costs has grown in tangent with the level of administration relative to faculty, the former now exceeds the latter. Housing, education, healthcare, now even the auto sector were/are juiced by easy credit terms that have led to a level of unaffordibility resulting in mass defaults. I’ll leave it to you to locate the end owner of this debt (hint: it’s Universal). Another coincidence ? Subsidize anything and its price will inflate in turn diminishing its relative value.
The “spin” is side stepping my point by presenting a strawman rebuttal based on a moral high ground, a divisive language or a perceived lack of credibility, albeit the touch of sophistication in citing a ‘think tank’ was nice. However, it’s telling that the Brookings Inst. was cited as support, considering they birthed the Hamilton Project, a push for ‘big box’ privatization and another death knell to free enterprise. No coincidence there.
Back to my point. Every ‘three year old’ running rampant on the street, as alluded to, is matched ten times over with adults (I live in Newburgh, so save that play card for the school board meetings while they muse over the notion of ‘increased funding’). So, my question stands, why is that ? Again, the current level of economic and moral bankruptcy is not for a lack of an education, pre-k or otherwise. The go to scapegoat “for the children” is a redirect from the consequential tipping point of untenable policies and an apathy toward addressing these causes while white washing the effects. Hence the the drive to “reduce some of the home stress”. That alternative could get ugly.
btw, I make no apologies for sarcasm.
I think there has been much deliberation into funding pre-K, and many studies have shown a positive impact for early intervention. The Brookings Inst summarized these impacts a few years ago, and a number of on the ground schools have been evaluated. The general conclusion is that pre-K is a good thing.
Introducing reading earlier, socializing children, especially when they are from single child homes, even providing earlier good nutrition with the lunch programs all have positive impacts that can be measured years later in these children. And if you think that three year olds aren’t ‘on the streets’ in some of the inner city areas in Newburgh, look again. It would be a real boon to help these kids at a younger age and reduce some of the home stress.
I agree with Dan, it’s good and Newburgh kids will benefit.
It’s so funny to watch my dog chase his tail…around and around he goes.
While early education unquestionably has benefits (socialization, etc) I does seem that we – as a society – are much like a man who has fallen overboard, and clinging from one buoy to the next. Sure, educate, socialize, but if we continue to neglect the inherent problems in our society, which are no doubt complex and difficult, there’s really limited positive impact.
Please excuse me for being critical and not providing a solution or alternative path – I’ll think about it.