Tonight I attended the Moharimet meeting to discuss the proposed Full Day Kindergarten. Approximately forty-five of us sat in a large circle and individuals offered their comments and posed questions in an orderly and considerate manner. Here's what I learned:
* The District fully acknowledges that Full Day Kindergarten is not an academic initiative (per Superintendent Colter and Principal Harrington)
* The District feels that children entering first grade are well prepared and that Full Day Kindergarten is not being studied due to any ill-preparedness among entering first graders (per Superintendent Colter and Principal Harrington)
* The Full Day Kindergarten study found that there are benefits associated with Full Day Kindergarten such as "more time to do more during the day," "being able to slow down" and "lowering daycare costs" (per Principal Harrington)
* The District does not know how many children are in daycare and are forced to make a transition between school and daycare, but promises to look into getting this information (per Superintendent Colter)
* The District has not yet decided to move forward with Full Day Kindergarten and tonight's discussion is part of the process in making a decision (per Superintendent Colter)
* There were seven (7) families, of the sixty-seven (67) in the Moharimet School district area, who chose not to enroll their children at Moharimet because of complications related to kindergarten / day care coordination / transitions (per Principal Harrington)
* The initial start up cost for the proposed program is estimated $50,000 to set up classrooms for three (3) classrooms (per Blaine Cox)
* The Full Day Kindergarten program's estimated cost for four (4) new teachers and four (4) new paraprofessionals, fully loaded with benefits including healthcare and operational costs such as electricity, fuel, etc., is estimated to be $340,000 per year; this figure already takes into account savings related to eliminating the afternoon bus run which is $140,000
(per Blaine Cox)
NOTE: Many at the meeting felt that this figure seems to be quite low for the number of full time staff additions. I agree. There will be additional training costs to ramp up and compensate teachers.
* Modular classrooms will cost approximately $15,000 per year (per Blaine Cox)
* There are several possible options including extended day kindergarten, partial half day / full day that will be costed and presented to the ORCSD School Board (per Superintendent Colter)
* The District will provide requisite training and compensate teachers for attending training in the summer months prior to the start of a Full Day Kindergarten program (per Superintendent Colter)
* Superintendent Colter stated that this meeting was a great opportunity to hear from parents and went beyond Full Day Kindergarten, but also included thoughts about other District priorities.
So, what are the next steps...here's the timeline (per Superintendent Colter's comments at the Oct.1st School Board meeting):
Oct 15th - Share public comments with the Board; provide a preliminary budget with no change in staffing, but if change in staffing then it will be in other grades.
Nov. 5 - -Determine whether or not to include Full Day Kindergarten in the 2009/2010 budget. Board can also request more information at this point.
Nov. 19 - Board vote on Full Day Kindergarten
Other considerations...
* The School Board is preparing a District Survey. Should not the Board poll parents and tax payers on District priorities? I proposed this at the end of tonight's meeting and hope to see this take place. How would you like $340,000 spent? I can think of many other areas of importance that are founded on academic principles (e.g. early foreign language, tiered classes in high school, more AP curricula, music / band in high school, etc.).
* Paraprofessionals need dedicated space to help children with special needs, rather than working with children in hall ways and nooks.
* Should not the District focus on academic / educational priorities? Parental daycare concerns should not be part of the District's concerns.
Good synopsis, Megan. I was completely dumbfounded and dismayed that one of the highlighted reasons by the administration in support of full day kindergarten was the need to provide day care for children of working parents. A kindergarten teacher spoke about concerns involving daycare in suggesting that full day kindergarten is needed. At least four working moms present at the meeting stated that their desire for full day kindergarten is because they need easier/cheaper daycare for their children. It is absolutely NOT the role of the school system to act as a daycare provider. There is no proof at this time that working families even outnumber stay-at-home parents of kindergartners in this community. Would taxpayers rather have their dollars spent on providing daycare for a few select children or to bolster our faltering school system by enriching the upper level curriculum and improving inadequate facilities at the elementary schools??
ReplyDeleteThanks Rebecca. Clearly, the District's priority should be education and the pursuit of academic excellence, not daycare or the role of caregiver / parent. I look at how $340,000 could be spent annually and find so many better uses. I was struck last night by the woman who presented the need for space for children with special needs. Again, wouldn't it be better use of $340,000 to save and build additions on our existing structures? It could benefit special needs children and typical children as well. Heck, I would love to see a track at the High School instead! The list of higher priority, academically oriented programs I would rather see than Full Day Kindergarten is quite lengthy (e.g. early language, tiered classes, AP / IB classes, music / band). The Board and Administration should spend time studying these academic programs and holding public forums on these areas, not Full Day Kindergarten.
ReplyDeleteI was not at the meeting last night (my husband was), but from your comments, Megan, I am struck by what seems to be a HUGE problem. WHY isn't the public voting on this??? I very much hope there will be a district-wide survey, at the least. I feel like this whole thing is incredibly rushed. Nov. 5, the date you say the school board will vote on this, is right around the corner. I am really concerned about this. I think we need to take a hard look at priorities here....
ReplyDeleteI am really disapointed with the lack of leadership on this issue. The report was very incomplete and for a feasibility support not to have financial estimates is unacceptable. To rush a decision in November because that is when the budget decisions are made is not appropriate when there are so many unanswered questions.
ReplyDeleteI listened to the school board meeting on television and heard the superintendent speak about possible costs of this program. He said the costs will be dependent on what happens in other grades at the elementary level, meaning some teachers might be cut, offsetting the cost of the kindergarten programs.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I like smaller classes (17-20), but especially at Moharimet the classes have been much higher lately. If the superintendent maxes out the classes in order to free up classroom space and funds to offset the cost of a full day kindergarten program all of our children will lose out in the end. We have heterogeneous classes with a variety of learning abilities and when a teacher has a class with 23 or 24 students, even with paraprofessionals helping, it is not an optimal learning atmosphere.
Given a choice, I think most parents would prefer smaller 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th grade classes to an extra 2.5 hours of kindergarten.
This is all about the kids and keeping the young families in the district. It is also NOT about reducing our tax burden per se but using the budget we have by reallocating it to more useful means. The way in which this is done currently is not great. I would give the grade a C-.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the group that started this should be commended as being careful caring members of our community. We moved here as well because of the schools and the perception out there is that they are great. It is true to a degree but it is like an onion. You feel off a few layers and you find some surprises. What I hope is that these surprises get fixed. I don't mind spending money to get services. Really. I am not for just cut and slashing the budget. But, when you see that bidding and purchasing policies were not followed or cared about and that led to a wasting of our money, then people SHOULD get upset. It is only natural. Especially in the face of the obstructions that I witnessed at last week's board meeting on TV.
Now, we are talking about spending 340K per year for full day Kindergarten without a vote to the public. We all HOPE the board respectfully spends a lot of time discussing this and makes the right choice. Unfortunately, it is not encompassing a bigger picture discussing of other academic priorities. That is the key. Again, I don't mind spending money but what other wasting is being done in there and why not spend an additional 340K per year for AP classes or languages? I just don't get it. If they compared other options alongside Kindergarten, then that would be a worthwhile discussion. By making this topic mutually exclusive, it is elusive why they are doing this now.
In response to the last commenter (who I agree with almost entirely), in these very troubled financial times, we need to be sensitive to everyone's tax burden. The people living on fixed incomes may not feel that it is "all about keeping the young families in the district", but more about long-term sustainability right now. We don't want to see anyone lose their homes because their investments are drying up or because they can no longer afford the high taxes in Durham.
ReplyDeleteWe have to remember this $340K has not just dropped down from heaven. Our district did not win a lottery. This will be added to our budget, increasing the taxes of everyone in our district, including seniors living solely on their monthly social security checks. Every time our school board increases the budget, even just 3%, this is passed on to those who may not be able to afford this or those who haven't seen a raise in their job in 3 years, or others whose jobs are very tenuous.
I don't think this should be an either/or conversation. This is just not the time to add ANY big ticket items to our budget.
The time is now to focus on the most critical and educationally beneficial programs. In the current financial environment, the School District should be focusing on academic priorities that will prepare Oyster River graduates for a competitive and difficult future. Let's get back to fundamentals and enhance the District with best-in-class foreign language offerings and honors / AP offerings. Let's give our children the best chances to succeed.
ReplyDelete