Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NYC has full day K already and many LI districts do not. So it kind of bothers me that we are talking about full day pre-K for NYC when our own kids don't have full day K.
Cuomo is playing to where his base will be for both his re-election to Albany and to a potential WH run in 2016.
New York City is fast becoming a liberal/left progressive town (well those are the only ones who seem bothered to vote anyway), and there is where AG will find deep pockets for raising funds and so forth. It will also help with standing shoulder to shoulder with Obama and other Democrats across the USA who strongly support government funding of Pre-K. There again speaking to the base as it were.
By not raising taxes to pay for this scheme it also helps deflect the common charge that NYC Democratic elected officials are "tax and spend".
PreK, like any other grade level in school, is not a political football. Developmental facts and the pressures of education in America dictate that we don't ignore the beneficial outcomes of attending a quality PreK program.
Go into any elementary school and you will quickly see that the Kindergarteners are doing work that we used to do in 1st or even 2nd grade. You can't throw a 4-5 year old into a classroom today who hasn't had all the readiness work covered ahead of time, or you are wasting a half a year or more trying to get them caught up to those kids who are ready. Throw them into a half day K and it's even worse. This is why you see children from poor backgrounds always ending up in remedial classes - at more cost to the taxpayer I might add - because they are constantly trying to catch up. They couldn't afford to go to a private PreK. In order to finally graduate, you might end up paying for 14 years rather than 13 years of public schooling, for kids who might get left back a grade along the way. So tax-wise, it's cheaper to pay for one year of PreK for everyone than 10's of thousands of dollars for each child who is in the system longer than everyone else.
Construction on the George Washington Bridge started in 1927 and was completed in 1931. I'm willing to bet that none of the engineers who designed the bridge had the benefit of Pre-K, or even full day kindergarten.
PreK, like any other grade level in school, is not a political football. Developmental facts and the pressures of education in America dictate that we don't ignore the beneficial outcomes of attending a quality PreK program.
Go into any elementary school and you will quickly see that the Kindergarteners are doing work that we used to do in 1st or even 2nd grade. You can't throw a 4-5 year old into a classroom today who hasn't had all the readiness work covered ahead of time, or you are wasting a half a year or more trying to get them caught up to those kids who are ready. Throw them into a half day K and it's even worse. This is why you see children from poor backgrounds always ending up in remedial classes - at more cost to the taxpayer I might add - because they are constantly trying to catch up. They couldn't afford to go to a private PreK. In order to finally graduate, you might end up paying for 14 years rather than 13 years of public schooling, for kids who might get left back a grade along the way. So tax-wise, it's cheaper to pay for one year of PreK for everyone than 10's of thousands of dollars for each child who is in the system longer than everyone else.
Actually there is at least one large and well respected recent study that shows most of the "gains" from Pre-K are lost within three years. Same study along with others cast doubts on your argument that kindergarten and first grade students whom did not attend Pre-K are somehow scarred academically for life. Large numbers simply caught up to their peers.
Actually there is at least one large and well respected recent study that shows most of the "gains" from Pre-K are lost within three years. Same study along with others cast doubts on your argument that kindergarten and first grade students whom did not attend Pre-K are somehow scarred academically for life. Large numbers simply caught up to their peers.
Yes but I believe the study also shows that imprisonment rates/ and drop out rates drop
Gonna chime in here about Cuomo as well. The guy is a freakin' elitist. His budget gives DeBlasio all he wants for what amounts to "free day care", yet Long Islanders get shafted in transportation, majority of transport funds go to fix upstate roads, meanwhile Nassau's buses won't get the $3.3M they asked for, so more cuts possible this summer. And Suffolk gets denied an extra $10M that would go for expanded bus service. Better transportation creates jobs and helps the economy but Cuomo won't see that. Albany Then there's the whole NY Rising debacle, so many here have still not recieved help, while New Jersey is moving faster helping Sandy victims. Then Common Core being shoved down our throats. The Board of Regents is a classic example of big, wasteful government, elected and paid to put together these tests. The Regents should be GOTTEN RID OF!
Then the electric rates, Cuomo lied to us when he said the rates would stay the same or go down with PSEG, heck, I knew that wasn't happening, remember his FATHER put us into that situation when he bankrupted LILCO over Shoreham.
Cuomo won't be getting my vote again, that's for sure. For all that put Chris Christie in a bad light, he has done much more for the people of New Jersey than Andrew Cuomo could even dream of doing for us. Cuomo doesn't even meet with people like Christie does, he just sits on his elitist throne up in Albany. What a disgrace. I wish Long Island would become part of New Jersey I think we'd all be better off!
Actually there is at least one large and well respected recent study that shows most of the "gains" from Pre-K are lost within three years. Same study along with others cast doubts on your argument that kindergarten and first grade students whom did not attend Pre-K are somehow scarred academically for life. Large numbers simply caught up to their peers.
I believe I know the study you are referring to- it compared academic pre-k to play-based pre-k, right? You are right, they found that academic gains from pre-k *are* lost within a few years. However, I believe that same study found that the gains from a play-based pre-k stay with the child forever (social skills, fine motor skills, etc- things that actually provide the basis for skills required to be a good student) and that kids from academic pre-k's were actually at as disadvantage once the academic gains were lost. If I'm thinking of the same study you were, it was very interesting!!
What worries me about universal pre-k is that they would make it too academic- which seems to be inappropriate for that age. Of course, its ridiculous that they are even considering universal pre-k for NYC when many Long Island districts don't even have full day Kindergarten...
Of course, its ridiculous that they are even considering universal pre-k for NYC when many Long Island districts don't even have full day Kindergarten...
And even more ridiculous that Long Islanders and other non NYC residents of NYS will be funding it!
And even more ridiculous that Long Islanders and other non NYC residents of NYS will be funding it!
I'll say it again. The liberal/left progressives believe they have the wind at their backs. Having won on "marriage equality" they are now moving onto social inequality. The recent election cycle where Democratic/progressive candidates won in mayoral, governor and local election races tells them the wind is at their backs.
If the rest of the state is so upset at AG over this Pre-K or other budget issues, the movement you are seeking is on your shoulder. However one predicts as always NYers will run their mouths for months then largely sit out the election.
Cuomo will run and likely win in November, then set his sights on the 2016 WH run. I predict he will do so regardless of the Clinton's plans or schemes. If AG loses in 2016 he'll serve out is governor term then probably call it quits. Third terms turn out famously bad for NYS governors so best to quit while he is ahead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
