I took a few notes and as near as I can tell the main arguments in favor of FDK are:
- Academic requirements in 1st grade have already pushed a certain curriculum down to Kindergarten, which makes HDK rushed. FDK would not add extra academics, it would simply allow sufficient time for the academics they're already trying to do in HDK.
- Because of the constrained schedule of HDK, differentiated curriculum is almost impossible, and small interruptions (spilled milk or wet pants) have a disproportionately large effect on the lesson plan.
- Most parents in the district (or considering moving into the district) are already paying out-of-pocket for a full-day experience, and FDK would be better (less bus time) and cheaper.
The main arguments against FDK are:
- It is the parents' responsibility to educate and nurture children, not the school's or the community's, and FDK works against that parental role being filled by actual parents.
- HDK is working, so there is no need to change the existing program, especially not by adding expense.
- State incentive aid will cause the district to implement a program that is not ideal, despite that in the long run the costs far exceed the aid.
Last night my feelings were not focused on any of those arguments, though. The reality is that my son, Kyle, who enters Kindergarten, will love FDK, it will be less of a hassle on my wife, and I can afford the tax increase. The only downside for my family is that I will feel obligated to send Camille to nursery school so she is ready for FDK. There is a good chance that I'll send her to nursery school anyway. No, my strong emotional reaction to the announcement of FDK was not entirely about FDK itself, but rather just an instinctive opposition to deception, and I felt like the district was trying to deceive the public. The costs were under-reported (and were again under-reported last night). Debra Gordon (a board member) indicated that she was surprised that people felt like this decision was already made, since she didn't know anything about it until a month ago. I found that remark validating in that she indicated I'm not the only one who knew this decision had already been made, but also a little naive on her part. Mrs. Mauro (another board member) clearly stated that she knew FDK would happen as soon as the building projects were completed and space was available. The FDK decision was made 5 years ago, and surprise on the part of Mrs. Gordon and the community is only because we haven't been involved in board meetings for 5 years.
There were other borderline jaw-dropping comments, like the mother who stated flatly that she had to work outside the home in order to afford to live in Niskayuna, so FDK was necessary. He husband (who is in realty) had previously indicated that FDK would raise home prices. Obviously it will also raise taxes. It seems like a vicious cycle to implement a program to help dual-income families when the program also has the side effect of requiring more families to be dual-income. Mrs. Sosnow stated that parents opposed to FDK could always hold their children back a year, or send them to a private HDK and then enroll them in 1st grade. The last public comment read the Seeds of Learning mailer from last Spring which described the burden FDK would place on taxpayers, and then asked "What has changed?" Aside from Mrs. Mauro's comment which indicated that even last Spring the board knew FDK would happen in 2011, there was a distinct lack of response to that question.
In addition to my public comment (which I feel came out poorly), during the break I spoke with Mrs. Sosnow and Mr. Baughman about the need for better communication. At least two pro-FDK parents made the "21st-century" argument for FDK--that modern times require changes, even to things that have been working for 30 years. Mrs. Sosnow agreed that the district did a poor job of informing parents (unintentionally, she claims), and was at least superficially receptive to some suggestions I made about 21st-century communication to match our 21st-century curriculum. We'll see how it goes.
One last comment. John Buhrmaster (the newest board member) stated his opinion that FDK is good for children, independent of state aid materializing. In a way, that was the most reassuring comment from any member of the board. If we do FDK, it should be done right, not done in a way to maximize state aid. I urge everyone who is passionate about the Kindergarten program to continue coming to board meetings. January through March is when budget discussions come up, and when we can expect the FDK planning committee to make reports. It is our obligation now to make sure that whatever the district does regarding FDK is done in the most effective and responsible way possible.
Thanks again to everyone for the discussion, especially the FDK supporters for filling in the parts of the argument I was missing.
Steve
