Your Involvement is Important

Last Tuesday we had to contend with winter weather. Thankfully this year hasn't been all too bad considering the historical record. I have to admit that I was sweating it a little bit. It wasn't even 5 minutes past my announcement that we would stick with the late start when the conditions began to deteriorate. Our buses were on the road; so absent turning them around we were at the point of no return. I knew the next hour was going to be stressful as the buses ran their routes and students (in particular our young drivers) made their way to school. I was waiting for the buses when they returned to school with the kids and all reported that conditions were fine. It turned out to be a very good week at Hudson Schools. But not for that reason alone. 

On Wednesday evening we hosted our second meeting of the high school task force. This cross section of community members have been gathering to discuss a possible renovation of the high school that, if moved forward will likely result in a referendum. If you recall, it was very cold that evening. (It was also very cold the evening of our first meeting.) Based on what happens in most communities, our consultants expected a much lower turnout at the second meeting. That didn't happen this time. In fact, we picked up a few people this time around. 

Then on Thursday I spent the day in Des Moines (a story for another day) and had to drive home in a snowstorm. If I didn't have a different meeting to get back for that evening, I may have considered staying in Des Moines. We were scheduled to meet with parents at 6:30 to unveil our plan for the early childhood expansion next year. It was important I make it back in time. With the weather, I anticipated a pretty small crowd. But it wasn't to be. Kind of like the high school meeting, we had even better attendance than we had during the fall meeting. 

What these two meetings showed me was that we have a very high level of community engagement and folks that are willing to give the gift of time. To provide input. To seek understanding. As we consider our future as a school district, I am thankful that we have this level of engagement from our parents and our community members. It is not like this in many parts of our nation (or even our state). Indeed it is often disappointing when I turn on the evening news and see reports of a great deal of negativity in schools. Board meetings packed with people angry about a decision that has been made, a book that is being taught, or a curriculum that is up for adoption. We are certainly far from perfect, but I am grateful for the level of pride you all have in your schools, and the trust you put in your child's teacher to provide them with the very best educational experience they can expect in the Cedar Valley. Hopefully you always feel like you are able to ask questions and, even if you don't always agree at the very least understand.

I want to encourage your continued involvement and have another very special request. Next week is parent teacher conferences. There really is no better opportunity to engage one on one with your child's teacher to discuss the most important people in your lives. You have the opportunity to understand what is going on in the classroom by asking questions and getting a very up to date and timely report on the academic progress of your kids. And our teachers have the opportunity to learn more from you about your child. 

We are wrapping up the third quarter this week. Once we return from spring break, it is going to be a sprint to the finish line. This may well be your final opportunity to visit with your child's teacher. Whether you are participating in a task force or a parent teacher conference, your involvement is important.

Preschool Recommendation Will Double Current Capacity

Late last spring our early childhood team approached me with a pressure point concern insofar as it related to our preschool and kindergarten program. It seemed that we had a number of families who preferred an additional year of preschool [whom would have been otherwise eligible for kindergarten]. In the past, we had accommodated requests like this by permitting children to participate in the preschool program as five year old[s]. The caveat was that they couldn't take the place of a four year old and that they had to pay tuition. Prior to the school year we currently find ourselves in, we were able to meet this need. Our preschool program wasn't full, so it was a relatively easy decision to allow these tuition paying students fill out the roster. 

Yet it was/is a delicate balancing act. Currently our preschool program is limited to 40 seats and we have to hold some of those seats in reserve to accommodate 3 year old students who have IEPs (Individual Educational Plan). The trouble is, on any given year we never really know how many 3 year old students there will be or when they will show up. Once a student turns 3 and has an IEP it becomes the local school district responsibility to serve that student. 

Going into this school year, our program was full meaning those 5 year old students couldn't be served, because again they can't take the place of a 4 year old. Because of this several students needed to be turned away. One of the solutions that was posed was the addition of a transitional kindergarten program. We have spent this year exploring that and other options in order to meet the needs of our early childhood program now and in the future. 

A transitional kindergarten program is one that is specifically designed for students who have completed preschool, but there is a feeling they might not be quite ready for kindergarten. In the eyes of the Iowa Department of Education, students who participate in transitional kindergarten are viewed no differently than those who are simply retained their kindergarten year. 

Knowing that it would be unlikely enough students would otherwise be 'eligible' for a transitional kindergarten, we considered an option that expanded our current early childhood by 20 spots to 60 total. This third section would have operated as a full day program mixed with 4 year old students and 5 year old students. The 4 year old students would be exposed to preschool curriculum, instruction, and assessments and counted and funded as preschool students. The 5 year old students would be exposed to kindergarten curriculum, instruction, and assessment and be funded as kindergarten students. At the same time, both the 4 year old and 5 year old students would be required to have access to an equitable program; in other words, the same as the rest of the preschool sections (half-day), and the kindergarten students (1,080 hours of instruction). Further, those 5 year old[s], since they were in fact considered kindergarten students would need to have access to all the amenities of their other kindergarten peers. If it sounds like a heavy lift for a teacher, it most certainly is! For these reasons, we determined this was not a workable solution for our district.

Our second option was a variation on the theme (if you will). Again, the program would expand by 20 spots for a total of 60 and would be a full day program. The difference this time, however, would be that all of the students (both 4 and 5 year old[s]) would be exposed to the same curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The 4 year old students would be counted and funded as preschool students. The 5 year old students would be counted as preschool students and funded through tuition. While this would not be as heavy a lift as operating two separate programs within the confines of a mixed classroom setting, it does create an issue of equity. Under this model, we would have one section of preschool funded with SWVPP (Statewide Voluntary Preschool Program) operating a full day program; and two sections of preschool funded with SWVPP operating a half day program. Further, it is important to realize that SWVPP funding is half the state cost per pupil because of the fact it is designed to fund a half day program. So, financially it would be very difficult to make a full day program operational on half day funding. Based on these factors, we concluded this too was not a workable solution for the district.

This leads us ultimately to the recommendation that we think is best for our district and for all families: expand the program by 28 spots for a total of 68 and create four half day sections. Under this scenario, we would dedicate one of the sections solely to 3 year old students on IEPs. This would leave 60 (half day) slots for our 4 year old students and 5 year old students. Granted, the 5 year old students would need to pay tuition and still would not be able to take the spot of a 4 year old, but it would relieve a tremendous amount of pressure on the current system. Further, current census projections suggest that, with kindergarten class size averages approaching the upper 50s, 60 spots is in alignment with district need for the next several years. One has to remember that we typically won't have all that many 5 year old[s] in the half day program and not all 4 year old[s] attend preschool.