Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Early Childhood Cuts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and teachers warn proposed plan would slash preschool seats from 360 to 80
Summary
Multiple teachers and parents said Scenario 7 would reduce early‑childhood seats from 360 to 80 in some proposals, risking loss of early learning for at‑risk children and increasing pressure on kindergarten classrooms; the board paused action to gather more input.
Teachers, parents and early‑childhood staff told the Harlem UD 122 board that the district’s consolidation proposal could eliminate most preschool seats and that the consequences would be acute for at‑risk children.
Katie Fowler, an early‑childhood teacher, said the plan would cut EC seats "from 360 seats to just 80," a reduction she characterized as an 80% loss of capacity. Multiple speakers said the remaining EC seats would likely be filled by students with IEPs, leaving fewer slots for children whose families lack other early‑learning options.
Support staff, classroom facilitators and parents described EC as the foundation of later success and warned of downstream effects in kindergarten and beyond. "Early childhood is that strong foundation for these kids," said Cassandra Thunberg, a special‑education para, who said removing access would set children "up for failure." Several presenters urged the board to prioritize maintaining EC seats or creating alternatives such as tuition‑based options for families if grant funding changes.
District presenters said some scenarios (notably Scenario 7) offer potential to expand EC general‑education access in the future, but staff also noted space constraints and grant‑funding limits in the near term. The superintendent and board did not adopt changes at the hearing; instead, the board agreed to pause and revisit proposals in December and January so staff can return with more specific cost, capacity and transition plans.
What remains unanswered: precise funding sources for EC seats under each scenario, which seats would be prioritized, and whether a tuition‑based model or phased approach is technically or legally feasible. The district has not yet published detailed cost‑savings for all scenarios; community members asked for a clearer accounting before any vote.
