Unanimous Vote for FDK

The was a very large turnout for last night's board meeting, including 16 members of the public who gave comments. During the board's discussion of FDK at least two board members indicated they had received many additional letters and emails on the topic. As near as I can tell, the community is pretty divided--the poll on this blog is slightly in opposed, but the public comments last night were slightly in favor. I hesitate to make any guesses about the results of the budget survey but hopefully we'll be hearing more about that in future board meetings.

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

Board Meeting Tomorrow!

The agenda for tomorrow's board meeting includes this item:

"A. Action on Implementation of Full-Day Kindergarten Program for the 2011-2012 School Year.

The Board will be asked to approve the implementation of full-day
kindergarten program for the 2011-2012 school year contingent upon the
availability of adequate state and local funding."

Please come and express your opinion. This might be the last opportunity to do so.

The meeting will be at Van Antwerp middle school, beginning at 7pm.

See you tomorrow,
Steve

From Whom It May Concern

Leslie wrote to the school board today.  I think her note covers a topic that has been under-represented thus far on this blog--that of parental choice and responsibility--so I am adding it here:

Dear School Board members,

I know you have had some parent feedback to the announcement about possibly transitioning to full-day Kindergarten for the 2011-12 school year.  I am the mother of a 3rd grader and a 1st grader at Glencliff Elementary.  I also have a 4-year-old who will attend Kindergarten at Glencliff in 2011-12 and a 1-year old who will attend Kindergarten in 2014-15.  I wanted to add my voice to those who are opposing the change.

 I think you have all been informed of the blog created to discuss this issue (halfdayniskayuna.blogspot.com).  There are some good arguments written there for keeping the half-day program.  I understand that there are also some good reasons for providing full-day Kindergarten in our district, and I agree that it may be better for some of the children, but I believe that, overall, the cons outweigh the pros.

In addition to concerns voiced on the blog I mentioned, I have another problem with the full-day program.  I believe the best place for a young child to be at that age is at home with a loving parent.  I do realize that many of the children in the district are not home with a loving parent at this age, but some are, and I believe it is not right to take that from them.  I worry that this switch to a full-day Kindergarten is part of a trend toward removing parental responsibility for education and nurture of children at an earlier age.  A five-year-old is very young and has much to learn in addition to academics.  The responsibility for nurture and education of a child belongs first to his/her parents.  It is the parents' responsibility to provide care for their children.  Different parents choose different ways to provide it--some provide it themselves, some pay others to provide it for them, but it is their responsibility and privilege to provide care for their children in the way they choose.  Implementing a full-day Kindergarten program in the district, while beneficial for many families, limits the choices of those families wherein parents are the after-school caregivers for their own children (i.e. stay-at-home moms and/or dads). 

I feel I have much to teach my children before they get to the point where they are away from home (being influenced by non-family members) more than at home (being influenced by me and other family members).  Please do not take that time from us!

I love Kindergarten at Glencliff.  It was wonderful for both of my older children, and I want the others to get to have that great first-time school experience too.  Please do not change it!!

Thanks for listening,

The New NY

Unfortunately I can't take credit for the following post. It was part of an email exchange I had with another parent in the district. I agree fully with her interpretation of the agenda, so I thought I'd post it here (with permission):

I looked up our Governor-elect's opinion on education costs. On his website (http://www.andrewcuomo.com/issues_and_agenda) he has a downloadable booklet called "The New NY Agenda: A Plan for Action", in which he details a "5 point plan to build a New NY" Section two of this missive is entitled "Get Our Fiscal House in Order" and he has this to say about education:

"Make Education More Efficient

Since 2003-04, school aid has increased at more than twice the rate of inflation. The State’s fiscal crisis makes it impossible for this rate of increase to be sustained. As part of reining in the growth of spending on education, the State must ensure that school aid is targeted and fair. Districts with the greatest educational need and the least ability to locally fund education must not bear the full brunt of any school aid cuts.

Building aid and other forms of “reimbursable” aid must be scrutinized so that they do not distort a school district’s incentives to control costs. "

He goes on to discuss building aid and transportation aid reductions and then says this:

"The State can cushion the impact of slowing the rate of growth in school aid by eliminating

mandates that dramatically increase the cost of providing a quality education and by encouraging

smaller school districts to achieve efficiencies through shared services and consolidation."

To me that says, "I'm not going to cut aid to NYC, but if you're an affluent suburb (I'm looking at you Niskayuna), you can expect to see some stiff cuts down the pipeline. And by the way, while FDK isn't a mandate, it is a program that dramatically increases the cost of providing a quality education, so don't count on the $619,000, either."

What was that cost again?

Kevin Baughman, Superintendent of schools:
"Our cost reductions and our revenues coming in will actually exceed our expense and that will actually offset. So there really isn't a local cost for year 1, year 2, and it really isn't until the third year. And after that it's roughly in the neighborhood of about $200,000."

District Report:
Cost in year 3 (2013-2014): $219,918
Cost in year 4 (2014-2015): $349,813
Cost in year 5 (2015-2016): $367,136

It's as though our Superintendent only thinks this program will last for 3 years. I guess I'm not opposed to that.

With Economy Uncertain,

Niskayuna Central School District makes no immediate plans to offer full day kindergarten

The Niskayuna school district, which has traditionally offered a half-day kindergarten program like many of its suburban counterparts, has discussed the topic of full day instruction for kindergarten students over the years and committees have studied the feasibility. In light of the current economic crisis and an expected decline in education dollars from the state, school officials reason that any plans to further explore the option of a full day kindergarten program will have to wait.

Although the New York State Board of Regents has proposed mandatory full-day kindergarten, such a proposal requires approval by the State Legislature to become law. Given the current economy, it is unlikely the Legislature will act anytime soon mandating full day Kindergarten programming. Kindergarten, while not mandated in the State of New York, is offered by a majority of school districts in the state as either a half day or a full day program at the discretion of the district. Only nine states require that a full-day kindergarten program by provided.
"To expand our existing program to full day would require significant increase in staff," said Superintendent of Schools Kevin Baughman. "Given the current economic climate, even maintaining current staffing levels and programs from this year to next will present considerable challenge." Despite a one-time state aid incentive provided to school districts for establishing a full-day program, a large share of the on-going cost of maintaining such a program would shift to local taxpayers in subsequent years.

Research suggests academic and social advantages for children who attend full day kindergarten. "Overall, there are benefits to full-day kindergarten. We are also fortunate that a large umber of children who begin their education in Niskayuna arrive here having attended a pre-school program," Baughman sad. "Many begin kindergarten with an adequate foundation, including supportive parents, that has prepared them to learn."

"Seeds of Learning" published by NCSD, Spring 2009. Emphasis added

November 16th School Board Meeting

Thank you again to the many people who came to the School Board meeting tonight. I found the conversation during the Art tour to be very informative. I fear that some of the comments to the Board were misunderstood, but overall they seemed appreciative of community interest.

At the specific invitation of the Superintendent, I have emailed the Board and Dr. Baughman directly, and I am sure he would extend the invitation to anyone else who feels like their comments or questions weren't fully addressed. His email address and that of the Board is on the District's website's 'Contact Us' page.

I am also interested in hearing more from all of you. My name is Steve Markham, and my email address is myfirstname.mylastname@gmail.com (I hate spam). Please comment here or email me directly if you'd like me to make a post for you.

Cheers,
Steve

Financial Uncertainty in the State of New York

However you feel about full-day Kindergarten, certainly we all agree that it is more expensive than a half-day program. The New York State Board of Education recommends a full-day program, and has put its money where its mouth is by offering state aid for schools that transition to FDK. When Scotia-Glenville switched to FDK last year, they received over $800,000 from the state. Niskayuna would receive an estimated $619,423 if the district switched in 2011-2012.

But since we're talking money, it's only fair to discuss the financial reasons that now is a particularly bad year to expand the budget or count on state aid. Going back to Scotia-Glenville, the Daily Gazette reports that within the very year they made the switch, they found themselves with not enough budget, looking for ways to save. Not wanting to look flaky, they decided not to switch back to HDK after only a year, and instead cut expenses in other places. That is, they ended up paying for FDK by making cuts in other places, despite $800,000 in state aid.

Governor Patterson has suggested that in order to start Governor-elect Cuomo out right, he would cut the state aid to education in order to balance the sickly state budget. If state aid is reduced mid-year, the $619,000 would not last nearly as long as the district's report estimates. Governor Cuomo, for his part, has publicly declared that he will seek a 2% cap on property tax increases. This means that the $320,000/year that FDK costs, which seems small when you talk about it as only 0.5%of the budget, is actually going to be 25% of the allowable budget expansion.

The uncertainty in the state budget this year makes 2011-2012 a particularly bad year to count on state aid and expand the budget. A change to FDK will not be reversed. Before we believe the district's report which claims a 3-year average cost of only $78,000, let's get real and admit that this is a $320,000+ expansion of the budget that will never go away. Let's not use optimistic math that depends on stable state aid to justify such a large, recurring expense.

The Case for Full-Day Kindergarten

I find that when I feel that a particular viewpoint is "obvious" it is helpful to step back and consider opposing viewpoints. This helps mitigate confirmation bias and groupthink, and can clarify why I adopt my particular opinion.

If you'll permit me to play Devil's Advocate on a Sunday, perhaps we would benefit from considering the case in favor of full-day kindergarten. First, a disclaimer: I am not actually in favor of changing to FDK, so I might be misrepresenting the case or leaving out significant aspects of the case altogether. But I'll do my best to describe what I see as the main reasons for FDK, and then we can talk about whether those reasons are stronger than the reasons against FDK, which have been covered in other posts.

The main reasons for FDK, as I see them, are: 1) to prevent regression in children who attended full-day pre-K, 2) to identify and support students who would benefit from earlier Academic Intervention Services, 3) to provide a slower pace to existing Kindergarten curriculum, 4) to expand the Kindergarten curriculum to allow outdoor play and/or art and music activities, and 5) to ease the burden on working parents who would otherwise require after-school day care (including mid-day transportation) for their children. Of less importance, but nonetheless real, is the fact that 6) FDK provides more jobs for elementary teachers.

Unfortunately, I lack at least some relevant data for all but two of those reasons. The district report on the transition indicates that 19 families would enroll a child in public Kindergarten instead of full-day private Kindergarten, from which I conclude that reason 5 applies to about 19 families. The district report also indicates that the expected layoff of 3 teachers would be avoided by a move to FDK. Assuming these 3 teachers aren't the parents of any of the 19 children, that's at least 22 families in the district with a direct benefit from FDK.

Although I don't know how many students are affected by the other four reasons, I feel we can have a productive look at those reasons. Just as the transition from no school at all to FDK would be more jolting than a transition into HDK (as described in an earlier post), the transition from full-day pre-K, to HDK, back to full-day 1st grade would be more painful. In fact, FDK worsens the transition only for children with no pre-K experience. Children who attended half-day pre-K are not experiencing a sharp transition. I don't know how many children have no pre-K experience, but would not be surprised if it were less than half of Kindergartners in the district.

It is hard to estimate how many children, if any, would be identified for AIS only in FDK (ie, they would be missed in HDK). However, it is often the case that the earlier the intervention, the more positive the outcome. Identifying even one student a year earlier would have a big impact for that student. And it seems plausible that in a half-day program a teacher may have less time to interact with and evaluate each student individually. It also seems likely that there is a correlation between reasons 1, 2, and 5. That is, children who need early intervention are more likely to have parents that both work (or only one parent), and therefore more likely to have attended full-day pre-K (or at least half-day). It is easy for well-to-do families with a stay-at-home parent to criticize FDK for the slight disadvantages it poses for them without recognize the rather large benefits it provides for less fortunate families.

Finally, reasons 3 and 4 really boil down to the same thing. If a major criticism of FDK is that it takes time away from the home/family setting, perhaps it is a good thing to make Kindergarten more like home--slower paced, more arts, crafts, and music instead of purely focused on math and reading, etc.

Together, these reasons cover a wide range of families in the district. Reasonable people might disagree about whether these reasons are more important than the reasons to oppose FDK, but hopefully this posts helps you see both sides of the discussion more clearly.

If I've left something out, or if you'd like to respond to these reasons, please comment or come to a board meeting.

Considerations Beyond Academic Achievement

Aside from academic achievement (addressed earlier), what other considerations should weigh on the debate between full-day and half-day kindergarten?

Here are a few thoughts.  Please add your own.

How important are teaching patience, empathy, compassion, honesty, and kindness?  Who can do this best? As schools across the nation have switched to full-day kindergarten, what has been the trend in behavioral problems, bullying, etc? I honestly have not studied this, but I have a hunch based on my own personal observations. Can anyone provide links to research on this topic? Could students develop more respectful behavior patterns at home?

"All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother." -- Abraham Lincoln