I don't think anything has changed but for several years pre-k has brought in more in federal funding than it has cost so there has been a net positive to the auburn taxpayer as a result of the federal funding structure.
I took the unpopular position of voting against expanding it two years ago because I felt that if and/or when that funding situation changes, that would be when we would see the cost and regret it. So far I have eaten crow on that position and, unless something has changed significantly that we haven't heard about, it remains a moneymaker, and I do believe in the value of the program - especially if it continues to be paid by the federal gov't.
Part of the problem again is that the discussion is always focused on the ideal situation, starting from the top down rather than talking about how we can work in the right direction so that we've built something solid over time.
When you ask parents, students, faculty, and teachers what they want to have of course the first response is - brand new high school and a mega facility to maximize the education dollar.
But we're aware there is a cost and whenever the topic comes up it seems like it never starts with that as a reality. So it goes nowhere and then we all wonder why...
Joking aside I do feel bad for her - i think the article was a little harsh. I actually agree to some extent with what I perceive to be the intention of her comment - at least the way I would word it - that there apparently isn't much focus on the big chunk of kids who will inevitably end up working with their hands in some way or another.
On one hand that (college emphasis) is probably the safe route to take given limited resources, and along with that is the fear that if college isn't the primary focus, there is always the danger that some of those who may have been in the best position to benefit from a college education might end up going into a trade, and being less productive than if they had gone to college.
On the other hand, knowing that there are so many who underachieve in college and in life, it is difficult to avoid the question of whether or not they might have been better off honing a particular skill or being exposed earlier on to a different path...
jaypaw's Comments
cool discussion
pretty cool that people are talking here. glad to see some passion for once
I don't think anything has
I don't think anything has changed but for several years pre-k has brought in more in federal funding than it has cost so there has been a net positive to the auburn taxpayer as a result of the federal funding structure.
I took the unpopular position of voting against expanding it two years ago because I felt that if and/or when that funding situation changes, that would be when we would see the cost and regret it. So far I have eaten crow on that position and, unless something has changed significantly that we haven't heard about, it remains a moneymaker, and I do believe in the value of the program - especially if it continues to be paid by the federal gov't.
part of the problem again
Part of the problem again is that the discussion is always focused on the ideal situation, starting from the top down rather than talking about how we can work in the right direction so that we've built something solid over time.
When you ask parents, students, faculty, and teachers what they want to have of course the first response is - brand new high school and a mega facility to maximize the education dollar.
But we're aware there is a cost and whenever the topic comes up it seems like it never starts with that as a reality. So it goes nowhere and then we all wonder why...
I agree!!
"Everybody doesn't go to college."
"Everybody's not ready for college."
“Sometimes I don't always explain myself well,”
Joking aside I do feel bad for her - i think the article was a little harsh. I actually agree to some extent with what I perceive to be the intention of her comment - at least the way I would word it - that there apparently isn't much focus on the big chunk of kids who will inevitably end up working with their hands in some way or another.
On one hand that (college emphasis) is probably the safe route to take given limited resources, and along with that is the fear that if college isn't the primary focus, there is always the danger that some of those who may have been in the best position to benefit from a college education might end up going into a trade, and being less productive than if they had gone to college.
On the other hand, knowing that there are so many who underachieve in college and in life, it is difficult to avoid the question of whether or not they might have been better off honing a particular skill or being exposed earlier on to a different path...
I should say were no less
I should say were no less vague - but you get the point I'm sure
Have a nice day!