The big takeaway from the Scranton Times today is that the district discussed cutting Pre-K.
I will not be voting to do that. Period.
So allow me to explain why it came up: we were cited by the federal government during our last audit (about a year ago) and we need to get into compliance or we will lose $6 million in funding. We CANNOT afford to let this happen.
The district solicitor, John Audi, outlined why we are out of compliance and how we can fix it. One option is to do away with Pre-K and redistribute the funds to K-5 or K-12. Another would be to keep Pre-K, redistribute the funds, and use district (rather than federal) dollars.
Or, you know… we could just get into compliance.
Why in God’s name we aren’t just doing that is beyond me. What does compliance look like? We need to have academic criteria and economic criteria. On the academic side, we already test the kids, we just don’t use it as a factor. Easy fix: use it is as a factor. This takes almost no extra work. And economically, I’m working on figuring out what that would look like, but the district could use income guidelines (proof of income) or, I believe, focus on what are called “catchment” areas, which are areas of town designated as impoverished. The latter sounds easier, since almost the whole city would fall under there and it’ll be less of a burden on families.
We also have to eliminate the whole first-come, first-serve system we have in place. I’m fine with that, as long as it keep the program alive.
In fact, when we fix this, it’ll mean my son will probably get removed from 3-year-old preschool. And I’m fine with that, too. If people with greater need get served, that’s a good thing. I signed my little guy up a few months ago because I was told that’s how it’s done. It didn’t make sense to me then, and now it’s clear that it’s not in compliance with federal law/guidelines.
Bottom line: I will be voting to make sure we keep Scranton’s long-running Pre-K program.
As for the appointment of the new Director, having been in that spot so many times made being on the other side very surreal for me. Nobody seemed able to offer a solid answer when it came to what our budget is, and that is so very basic, I was disappointed. Same with policy suggestions. Nothing really substantive, new, unique, or creative came up. Ro Hume and Sarah Cruz were very compelling speakers. Ken Norton, who got the appointment in a 7-1 vote, impressed me with his background in the trades. I recently read that there’s actual bi-partisan movement in Pennsylvania to invest in technical education. That side of expertise is lacking on the Board and I’m glad we have somebody who is in that realm. On top of that, I think being educated in public schools is important if you want to run one. All around, I’m looking forward to working with our newest member and am glad it wasn’t controversial.
As always, if anybody has any questions about anything, e-mail me any time (tom.borthwick@ssdedu.org).
Tom,
As always, I enjoyed your post-mortem of the last SSD board meeting. By the way, if ever there was a place where the phrase “post-mortem” was apropos, well, it’s the SSD. Anyway, two thoughts for you:
1) Any sightings of the SSD Great White Whale, also known as the busing contract?
2) The “first come, first serve” Pre-K system is, in a word, horrible. How many of those “first come” slots ended up going to folks who were “in the know”? It smells like yet another example of the SSD deck being stacked in favor of a select few. As some who personally benefited from the Head Start program as a child, I view programs such as Pre-K to be essential, so I’m glad that you will do what it takes to keep the program running…all be it in a manner that benefits those who truly need it the most.
Regards,
– Steve
Steve,
The bus contract is beyond my understanding, because of the nature of the craziness. I can say definitively that we will cancel it as part of the Recovery Plan, and that makes me pretty happy. PFM (the state-appointed district watchdog) has said the contract is legit. But the fact that we can cancel it legally makes the argument over legitimacy irrelevant. Bottom line: if the Board adopts the Recovery Plan, then we can move forward.
As for number two, that system is dumb. I was told that I needed to hurry up and apply, so I did. I felt at the time, and still feel now, that that’s disgusting. So we now have an opportunity to stop that stupid practice. It will probably mean my son gets kicked out. And I am completely fine with that, if it means we save the program and help kids who need help. I’m lucky enough that I can figure out childcare. Not everybody else has that.