Issue #13: There has been a lack of clarity with regards to their initial desired outcomes. The original intent of this topic was going to be an explanation to the Administration that it is very hard for the public who do not have children in the all-day Kindergarten to know if it is truly a good investment for the community. The words they use when describing the program are very intangible measures, and while that might be acceptable to parents of Kindergartners, it is not the proper way to justify the continuation and expansion of the program. Since the conception of this series however, details of the original Task Force report have been uncovered. It seems the public interest would well served by reviewing that 2007 data.
The original initiative that brought all-day Kindergarten to Hebron started with a study from June 2006 – June 2007. It does not appear that there were ANY identified problems in the Hebron school system that provided the impetus for this program. In fact, the actual recommendation was:
Based on review of current research, the results of the community survey, the experiences of members of the task force, and the outcome of school visits, it is the Kindergarten Task Force’s recommendation to pursue full-day kindergarten programming in the Hebron School District
The study did not identify any measures by which success, failure, or continued justification of an all-day program could or would be determined.
The study cited many of the same reports that are referenced throughout this series of topics, but it failed to cite any of the studies that find a lack of sustained advantage for all-day Kindergarten attendees.
This might be a case of purposeful selection of data to support a position, or a lack of thoroughness, or the currency of the reports which suggest that the benefits of all-day Kindergarten do not perpetuate into third grade.
To its credit, the task force report cited very specific research directed towards half-day versus all-day programs; however, they were all generalized (meaning the socio-economic situation of the students may or may not resemble Hebron students.)
It was interesting that the research quoted in the report stated “Children involved in full-day programs out-perform their half-day peers in literacy and mathematics.” This would indicate that the task force believed there were some quantitative measures available for determining the success of an all-day Kindergarten program. If this is the case, could Hebron use those quantitative measures to establish whether there is—or is not – a need in Hebron for the ADK program?
There does not appear to have been any consideration of the Superintendent’s current blog statement that “The purpose of All-Day kindergarten is not to provide daycare, but to close the achievement gap or preventing an achievement gap before it gets established.” A need-based system for this program, where it would be provided for those who truly need it for developmental reasons, was not part of the 2007 task force study.
Also interesting about the 2007 Task Force study is that the data collected from “school visits” appears mostly subjective: i.e., they asked teachers for their opinions on all-day Kindergarten. Quoting from Page 7 of the 33 page report:
“What do kindergarten teachers see as the benefits of full-day kindergarten?”
The VERY first bullet item listed under this heading was:
“Ability to meet curriculum goals, more small group activities, and not as rushed through lessons. More importantly, they have more time to play.”
The VERY last bullet item on that same page, same topic also stated “More time to play.”
The most striking shortcoming of the Task Force report was its one-dimensional focus on the classroom comparison between half-day and full-day Kindergarten, but NO consideration for the comparison between an actual day of a half-day and an actual day of an all-day Kindergartener.
It is almost as if it never occurred to anyone that the half-day Kindergartener might go home, or go to PREP, or go to KinderCare, or go to grandma’s, or go to a friend’s house, or go to the community center, or go to the library, or go to the park, or go anywhere but a dark abyss devoid of any learning opportunities. Any Environmental Learning advocate reading the report would conclude that Hebron was a stark, barren desert filled with grey concrete structures containing just one brilliant oasis: the Kindergarten classroom.
There was a one-dimensional focus that all the teaching and learning of 4-6 year olds happens at school, and that teaching and learning is solely the responsibility of teachers. Reading the input from other schools gave great insight into the challenges and potential problems with all-day Kindergarten program, even as it also highlighted the benefits.
Consistently, the benefits of all-day Kindergarten listed were a less rushed day, more play time, more time at centers, more one-on-one time with instructors, more time to get through the curriculum, and more situations that mirror the higher grades (e.g. lunch in the cafeteria). There seemed to be no consideration in the report for alternative means by which Kindergarteners could receive these same benefits.
If this Task Force report is such a strong justification for all-day Kindergarten, then the Superintendent should post it on the school website along with the current, proposed budget. It would provide valuable perspective to parents and taxpayers alike.
In case that 2007 report is not published on the school website for the general public, please consider that many of the findings for the desirability of the program were based on a Task Force Survey, conducted in mid-2007. This was a survey sent home in student backpacks and returned to the schools by the students. If anyone in the public wanted to provide input, they could have gotten copies from Town Hall, the Douglas Library, the Senior Center, or on the Town’s website and returned them in the drop boxes provided. Of the 298 respondents to that old 2007 survey:
+ 111 (37%) did not support a full or extended day initiative and 187 (63%) did support a full or extended day initiative.
+ Those with children who would be eligible for the full day program voted 70% in favor of a full or extended day initiative.
+ Those with no children in the school system voted 73% NOT in favor of a full or extended day initiative.
+ Those with children in the school system who were beyond Kindergarten age voted 57% in favor and 43% NOT in favor of a full or extended day initiative.
It would be very interesting to see if these results would be similar given all the information now available about the program. It would be interesting to see if the current threat to cut other programs, open union contracts, or the doubling of unemployment would influence the results of this survey.