If the state makes them go and it is a full day .... Isn't it just school? Adding another year to K- 12? ... So basically it becomes Kindergarten and 12th becomes 13th grade .... Why don't you just send them year round while you're at it. ;)
According to the linked article, at the moment Cuomo is talking about giving schools the funding they would need to create all day Pre-K programs. Schools can choose not to create such programs. Parents can choose not to send their kids.
As for the poll question; No. Studies are conflicted on whether students that go to Pre-K have any educational edge over those that didn't. If they're not getting an educational advantage, it's basically just state-funded Daycare.
Remember that this is an election year, Cuomo's State of the State address wasn't so much a commentary on how NY is doing as it was a grandiose first campaign speech laying out impossible to accomplish (fund) promises aimed at specific voting demographics. The earmarking of so large a sum of money for pre-K, even though it is not mandatory, accomplishes two things for the Cuomo re-election bid. First, it satisfies an emotional need in voters. When was the last time you heard a SOTS address or even a SOTU address for that matter that didn't specifically target education and increased spending for the sake of the children. It plays very well with voters from all demographics because no one wants to shortchange the kids and yet so many of the grand promises never fulfill there stated goals, they do however get people re-elected. Second, a sweeping implementation of pre-K means one very important thing to Cuomo and his base, more union jobs.
I agree with Jason..Its state run daycare..Where do schools get the extra room needed for this new day care plan..More teachers and aides to hire,more building additions to schools,increase size of the school lunch program,and busing....Just more tax burden on all..
In my experience, Pre-K is invaluable for children. It prepares them for kindergarten, teaches them the basics, letters, colors, shapes, etc and helps them understand how to socialize with their peers.
I've had two kids go through the Pre-K program at the Y and I really can't say enough good things about it.
I don't think that it should be a full day. That's a lot for a 4 year old to handle. The shortened structure is a good transitional period from being at home all day to kindergarten.
I should note that my kids don't go to day care, so the socialization aspect of Pre-K was critical to their development.
Mr. Allen, your post is naughtily misleading. Have you been taking cues from propagandizing media? Or maybe it was just a lazy jab.
Well! I for one am just dying to be thrilled with your acumen…..which myth or myths in this…“study”….do you and Mr. Couchman support? And which sources do you refute, and why?
Oh and I’d love to know what either or both of you think the cons are to early childhood education.
Is the best outcome in any commodity achieved from a monopoly or from competition?
Should education become a marketable commodity?
Would free market schools either perform to the satisfaction of their customers (parents of students) or end up going out of business?
Pre-K may be a great thing, I'm not saying it isn't, but where, ultimately does anyone think this money is coming from? Hint: It ain't growing on a tree. I learned that from my Dad, not at school.
How will the esteemed Governor track the success of this 2 billion $ expenditure?
Does the "education bureaucracy" believe that parents are not smart enough to assess the educational progress of their children?
Are most of the problems with public schools caused by the very same government intervention which seeks to cure them with more government intervention?
All questions I am not necessarily seeking answers to, but Things we should all be considering. If you can open your government indoctrinated mind, that is.
Its called an opinion in my case Julie. Since opinions arent facts, there is no need to qualify it at all or provide any alternate sources.
But lets be honest here did you expect an institute that relies on early education to come to ANY other conclusion? Thats like expecting Anhauser Busch to deliver a fair and balanced report on the negative effects of alcohol consumption.
The whole argument over compulsory Pre-K education is based on the belief that we are being out preformed by Asian nations in education. This is true, but the basis for this is not at which level children enter school.
In the nations that are usually point to as superior educators to us, China, Germany, South Korea and Japan, ALL four offer Pre-K, HOWEVER, only Germany makes this compulsory.
What you do see differently in these nations is discipline in schools. i.e. uniforms, strict standards, heavy emphasis on Math, Language and Science, The system demands strict levels of achievement in all four nations. Strangely, at the high School level, the focus on college is far less than it is here and trade specialized training is predominant Only those who earn the right through achievement go on to college. The result is that students strive harder to reach college level success.
It really boils down to a universal truth, '"The Primary Educators Of Children Are Their Parents" work ethic and self discipline have far more to do with learning in these nations. The reason for the uniforms is because social interaction does not carry the same weight as achievement does in those nations.
It just seems Ironic to me, that the nation we find our self most in competition with educationally, (Which is among the least freedom wise in the world) does not mandate school until age 6, which is China.
While we burden ourselves in the US with law suits against school systems and studies about social interaction and bullying, the best results are coming from countries that emphasize educational competition and self discipline, go figure.
Julie, I never said I was anti-early education, I did say in yesterday's thread that for every study that is pro pre-K, there is at least one or more studies that say it has no effect on long term academic success. When a method is that tenuous in it's outcome, I am not willing to support throwing billions of tax payer dollars we don't have at it
Made available? Definitely -
Made available? Definitely - the earlier kids start to learn the better off they will be.
Mandated? No.
Nothing should be required
Nothing should be required throughout the state. At least not education-wise.
I actually agree with Tim. Available, Sure. Required. Not
This is ridiculous! He's got
This is ridiculous! He's got to go...
If the state makes them go
If the state makes them go and it is a full day .... Isn't it just school? Adding another year to K- 12? ... So basically it becomes Kindergarten and 12th becomes 13th grade .... Why don't you just send them year round while you're at it. ;)
According to the linked
According to the linked article, at the moment Cuomo is talking about giving schools the funding they would need to create all day Pre-K programs. Schools can choose not to create such programs. Parents can choose not to send their kids.
As for the poll question; No. Studies are conflicted on whether students that go to Pre-K have any educational edge over those that didn't. If they're not getting an educational advantage, it's basically just state-funded Daycare.
Remember that this is an
Remember that this is an election year, Cuomo's State of the State address wasn't so much a commentary on how NY is doing as it was a grandiose first campaign speech laying out impossible to accomplish (fund) promises aimed at specific voting demographics. The earmarking of so large a sum of money for pre-K, even though it is not mandatory, accomplishes two things for the Cuomo re-election bid. First, it satisfies an emotional need in voters. When was the last time you heard a SOTS address or even a SOTU address for that matter that didn't specifically target education and increased spending for the sake of the children. It plays very well with voters from all demographics because no one wants to shortchange the kids and yet so many of the grand promises never fulfill there stated goals, they do however get people re-elected. Second, a sweeping implementation of pre-K means one very important thing to Cuomo and his base, more union jobs.
I agree with Jason..Its state
I agree with Jason..Its state run daycare..Where do schools get the extra room needed for this new day care plan..More teachers and aides to hire,more building additions to schools,increase size of the school lunch program,and busing....Just more tax burden on all..
I am pretty much of the same
I am pretty much of the same mind as Tim Miller on this, available yes, required no
http://nieer.org/resources/fa
http://nieer.org/resources/factsheets/13.pdf
Hmmmm, a study that supports
Hmmmm, a study that supports early education done by an institute that depends on the existence of early education.
LOL Jeff.....no vested
LOL Jeff.....no vested interest in the results there huh Jeff?
In my experience, Pre-K is
In my experience, Pre-K is invaluable for children. It prepares them for kindergarten, teaches them the basics, letters, colors, shapes, etc and helps them understand how to socialize with their peers.
I've had two kids go through the Pre-K program at the Y and I really can't say enough good things about it.
I don't think that it should be a full day. That's a lot for a 4 year old to handle. The shortened structure is a good transitional period from being at home all day to kindergarten.
I should note that my kids don't go to day care, so the socialization aspect of Pre-K was critical to their development.
Mr. Allen, your post is
Mr. Allen, your post is naughtily misleading. Have you been taking cues from propagandizing media? Or maybe it was just a lazy jab.
Well! I for one am just dying to be thrilled with your acumen…..which myth or myths in this…“study”….do you and Mr. Couchman support? And which sources do you refute, and why?
Oh and I’d love to know what either or both of you think the cons are to early childhood education.
Thanks, muah!
Is the best outcome in any
Is the best outcome in any commodity achieved from a monopoly or from competition?
Should education become a marketable commodity?
Would free market schools either perform to the satisfaction of their customers (parents of students) or end up going out of business?
Pre-K may be a great thing, I'm not saying it isn't, but where, ultimately does anyone think this money is coming from? Hint: It ain't growing on a tree. I learned that from my Dad, not at school.
How will the esteemed Governor track the success of this 2 billion $ expenditure?
Does the "education bureaucracy" believe that parents are not smart enough to assess the educational progress of their children?
Are most of the problems with public schools caused by the very same government intervention which seeks to cure them with more government intervention?
All questions I am not necessarily seeking answers to, but Things we should all be considering. If you can open your government indoctrinated mind, that is.
A 4 part series, the buttons
A 4 part series, the buttons at the top right will direct you to each of 4 essays about the history of the debate over state-mandated education.
http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/critics-st…
Its called an opinion in my
Its called an opinion in my case Julie. Since opinions arent facts, there is no need to qualify it at all or provide any alternate sources.
But lets be honest here did you expect an institute that relies on early education to come to ANY other conclusion? Thats like expecting Anhauser Busch to deliver a fair and balanced report on the negative effects of alcohol consumption.
The whole argument over
The whole argument over compulsory Pre-K education is based on the belief that we are being out preformed by Asian nations in education. This is true, but the basis for this is not at which level children enter school.
In the nations that are usually point to as superior educators to us, China, Germany, South Korea and Japan, ALL four offer Pre-K, HOWEVER, only Germany makes this compulsory.
What you do see differently in these nations is discipline in schools. i.e. uniforms, strict standards, heavy emphasis on Math, Language and Science, The system demands strict levels of achievement in all four nations. Strangely, at the high School level, the focus on college is far less than it is here and trade specialized training is predominant Only those who earn the right through achievement go on to college. The result is that students strive harder to reach college level success.
It really boils down to a universal truth, '"The Primary Educators Of Children Are Their Parents" work ethic and self discipline have far more to do with learning in these nations. The reason for the uniforms is because social interaction does not carry the same weight as achievement does in those nations.
It just seems Ironic to me, that the nation we find our self most in competition with educationally, (Which is among the least freedom wise in the world) does not mandate school until age 6, which is China.
While we burden ourselves in the US with law suits against school systems and studies about social interaction and bullying, the best results are coming from countries that emphasize educational competition and self discipline, go figure.
Julie, I never said I was
Julie, I never said I was anti-early education, I did say in yesterday's thread that for every study that is pro pre-K, there is at least one or more studies that say it has no effect on long term academic success. When a method is that tenuous in it's outcome, I am not willing to support throwing billions of tax payer dollars we don't have at it
Available: Yes. Required:
Available: Yes. Required: No.
If a taxpayer wants this
If a taxpayer wants this program then pay for it out of your own pocket not mine..