The full-day kindergarten pilot was initially and appropriately presented to the Curriculum Committee of the Board, per the NASD committee structure and function. Ms. Callie, committee chairperson, requested that the presentation be given to the Board as a whole and recommended to the Board that administration proceed with the development of the program including a plan to implement for SY 2007-2008, the year in which the grant funds would need to be expended. There was verbal support from several board members, some cautions fromTo which I replied copying the Board, and those originally copied Superintendent Lesky and Principal Mudlock.
another, and no opposition was evidenced.
The Board of School Directors does not need to vote on a resolution to apply for and/or accept grant funding. The pilot program will be approved as part of the budget process. The Board will vote on a resolution to hire, if/when the grant application is reviewed and grant funds are awarded by PDE.
Thanks for the note. As I understand this the Full Day K pilot program will be implemented when the budget is approved and the Board will only determine if additional staff will be hired to implement the program (I believe we need a half day k teacher to accomplish this).I then copied and pasted the points from the post (link included above) from earlier in the week.
Shafer will then have 2 EDK classes with 30 students, full day K will have 15-18, and I would assume there would be one AM and one PM class for the remaining students (4 teachers, approx. 85 K students).
I've copied the balance of the Board members because I'd like to point out prior to embarking on full day K for non at risk students that the information provided to the Board, by no fault of Mr. Mudlock's whatsoever, has been contested by research conducted by RAND.
RAND determined among other things, that K readiness is the primary determinant to academic success over time and further that many studies that did not control for this factor presented results indicating full day K had benefits that do not in reality exist.
You can read the report here:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG558.pdf
I'm sure several of you are thinking there's always a report to support and refute anything, and while that is probably true, I don't believe that is the case with this report. RAND is a well respected research organization. I'd encourage everyone to at the very least read the introduction and first chapter.
I wrote about this recently on my site, and to save you from having to link to it, I made the following comparisons between the material you received and what I found in the report. Again, this is not in any way to state that their was anything intentionally misleading, only that the research itself was probably flawed.
I know that many people support this program and it seems to make sense, but if you read this report (intro and chapter 1 give overview) I think you'll be surprised to learn that full day K over time results in no benefit to a decrease in performance by sixth grade when controlled for K readiness levels.
Are we ready to commit what was reported to be $400-$500,000 on an increasing and annual basis for a program that may be detrimental to learning compared to what we have now?
What do you think?
10 comments:
I have two children. One went to half day K and one had half day K with an afterschool program. I have to say that full day K may not predict long term achievement as stated in the study but in my individual experience it did cut down on remediation necessary in first and second grade to get my less developed child up to a class average. It was hard for him to spend the day in school and then to have to go to afterschool programs, summer programs when other students were not. We may spend more money institutiong the program to start but may end up saving money on remediation.
The program for 30 students (which was expanded from 15) who are determined through testing to be most at need for extra help, do receive and will continue to receive it.
So I don't disagree on that point, but the trend toward full day K is based more on convenience and cost for double income parents and the statistics supporting its benefits now appear to be flawed.
To pursue a pilot program for all day k that in the future could incur costs that could be in excess of $500,000 for these reasons and at the expense of long-term learning doesn't seem to be very wise or frugal.
The research shows that K readiness is the key determinant to long-term learning and that full day k in fact has no benefit to reading and is a detriment to math by 6th grade.
I have read (actually skimmed) the study that Ross referenced. And while I didn't see anything "wrong" with the researchers methodologies, I wonder how could math scores have decreased by 6th grade? There isn't any rationale for it. By that time, a student has been removed from the all day KG experience for 5-6 years. They have (presumably) been attending all day 1-5th grade. So what's the link? I need to read this RAND study more carefully, but looking at it from the "50,000 ft level", it doesn't make any sense.
Personal disclaimer: My daughter (who is in 1st grade now) went to an all day (private) KG. She did excellent. My son will be in KG (at Shafer) next year and we would enroll him in all day (not ED) if given the opportunity.
I think I mentioned this study reminded me of the examples in the book Freakonomics because the research that seems 'right' isn't.
RAND is not pro or anti education or all day K, and the experience I had with their research in other fields was good, so I'd trust it here.
I haven't read it in detail either, but it seems to me it should be taken into consideration by the NASD and the Board before they continue to move forward.
And on a final note, I don't think anyone should be concerned if their kid was in all day K because the really important thing is if the child is prepared for K.
The authors note that if schools are seeking ways to improve results over time funding programs for students to be prepared for K is more important than funding all day k.
Ross, we've both read Freakonomics, so I know that things don't always "appear what they seem".
I did manage to read this report a bit further. There were some aspects that I would question. The big one was that the study did not control for self-bias. In other words, they didn't take into account WHO was more likely to utilize all-day KG. In other studies, it was shown that lower-income families were more likely to have their kids enrolled in all day KG.
So what you ask? Well there is a strong (positive) correlation between children's acadmeic achievements and increasing household income. Since lower income households were more likely to utilize all day KG and lower household income has a negative effect on a childs test scores, it stands to reason that these particular kids would have scored the way they did regardless (i.e., their math scores didn't suffer/decline because they were in all day KG, their math scores declined because they were from lower income households).
Move to Nazareth-they have all day K---here come the two income families---
day care kids are bringing down our school system--not every one of them, just as a collective whole!!!
Brad wrote- Well there is a strong (positive) correlation between children's acadmeic achievements and increasing household income.
I would assert that would mean a one income family--
Two income families utilizing daycare are NOT bringing schools the same product in september as one income families--making more $ usually only means you live in a richer school district---higher household income does not mean your kids are better students--in fact if you are replacing time spent with your kids with income producing opportunities I would guarantee your kids are suffering because of it---
unless of course you stink at staying home with your kids--then of course they are better off being in day care--
I for one am saddened by the high number of day care kids in our district, which in the classroom translates into more behavioral problems and academic challenges--
I think that everyone is making this discussion too simple... so many variables go into making a student ready for K. I think developmental readiness is huge- it's like learning to talk... everyone starts a different rate- if you immersed a child in a full day talking program, it does not mean they will speak in full sentences at 6 months. They will speak in full sentences when they are good and ready- and our job as parents is to catch that teachable time, and build on the developmental skills. Each child is so different.
And I have to say I disagree with the 10:17 commenter regarding status of daycare kids. More is not better- I am a working mom, and the time I spend with my kids is precious. I make sure I show them everyday how much I love them with my words and actions- for that, they are better students and children. My children are day care kids, and I am proud to say I think they are loving and caring kids. They stand up for what they believe in and look out that other kids are not hurt. They have good work ethics, and are willing to try their best to make me and my husband ... and themselves proud of their accomplishments. I think it has less to do with day care, full day K and 1/2 day K as it does with who the kid is and what they need. THeir is no one size fits all, and supersizing does not meet every child's need depending on their temperament. MOre is not necessarily better.
On the day care study, I agree with Brad's point about the self-bias. Those chosen for the study could make a big difference on the outcome.
I really think all day K is right for some kids- I think it would be great for my son, but I don't know if my daughter would have handled it... developmentally, she needed to ease in more. It really is an individual choice, thus making the current pilot program a nice opportunity- because it will serve the needs of those who need it-since you can put your name in voluntarily, and if you don't think it's for your child, then don't put your name in.
anon 2:36
The problem is that it is voluntary this year but we are laying the foundation for mandatory in the years to come...
Full/All day k is on its way to NASD-I have heard it noted by Lesky for years now---and you will not have a choice as you do now---we will spend the extra 500K--we will reduce the day care demands of many a K kid---and you will not have a choice if your kid is ready for all day or not---
There is always home schooling. At least for K.
Post a Comment