Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Monday, October 12, 2009, 11:59 PM

Proposed pre-K class targets 'achievement gap'
Palo Alto school board to discuss foundation-backed three-year pilot program

by Palo Alto Weekly staff
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by question, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 10:17 am

What is the difference between this program and the Barron Park 4's located in the portables there? It was also started as a program to prepare at-risk students for kindergarten.

Posted by Simon Firth, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 10:53 am

This seems like a really good idea to me -- much more likely to make a real difference to the success of all children in kindergarten than the randomly (and self) selected Young Fives program.

I wonder, though, how the district will ensure that the children who need the program the most will be given the highest priority? Will all incoming kinders be tested in December or January prior to the class being assembled in February? If not, my fear would be that only children with parents or preschool teachers who are tuned into the district's workings will want to apply, or even know about the program -- and those are the children who (even if they have late birthdays or are developmentally immature) already have some positive factors (savvy parents, preschool teachers) that will help them succeed.

If we can be sure we're catching all who need it, though, this will be wonderful.

Posted by Hays Mom, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 1:54 pm

The district has crowding and crammed classrooms on every campus.

Why would they choose to add two more classes full of kids that they do not have any responsibility to educate?

It is time to take care of the many unmet needs that already exist with current students.

Posted by Unanswered questions, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 1:55 pm

"The rest would be covered with district categorical funds."

What other costs?

Would East Palo Alto children be eligible for this program?

Why is the district considering adding new programs that cost $$$ when it has multiple millions of dollars of deficits this year, next year and as far as the eye can see?

Posted by Simon Firth, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 2:18 pm

If we need to find money to pay for it, I'd close Young Fives before I scratched this new program. Children in Young Fives are spending an extra year in school at the district's expense, and since none are tested prior to going in, my suspicion is that not all need it -- and that most of those who really aren't quite ready for kindergarten could be considerably helped by the Springboard program.

As it is we have a lucky few being given a 'red-shirt' year at the district's expense and then a bunch of other children, many much younger or in more developmental need than those who happened to win the Young Fives lottery, going into the regular kinder stream. It's a poor use of resources.

An alternative, I guess, would be to scratch the Springboard idea and make the Young Fives actually serve those most in need.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Where did this idea suddenly spring from? Usually these things are discussed for months before the school board discusses it.

The idea in essence holds merit, but my suspicion is that there is no machinery in place to check if a child needs this program before kindergarten registration is due which also happens to be in February. I suspect that it will be used by many who just want to give their kids an early rung on the ladder for free, just like those who use Young 5s.

How much will this cost and what will suffer as a consequence?

I always knew that someone, somewhere had ulterior motives of what to do with the space at Greendell when the JCC left. I suspected that it would not do anything to relieve space in elementary schools. Seems as if I was right.

Posted by Local Mom, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 4:03 pm

Children ARE tested before being allowed to apply for the young fives program. There is a battery of assesments they must pass.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 4:10 pm

Local Mom

With all due respect, I would expect them to fail the assessments to get a place in Young 5s, or Springboard, rather than pass them.

Posted by Simon Firth, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 4:30 pm

Local mom -- thanks for the info. That must be new and I'm glad to hear it. I don't remember that being the case when my first child went into kindergarten a couple of years ago.

Even if Young Fives now targets those most in need of it, I'd still argue that the Springboard program is a great idea. If most children in Springboard were in danger of repeating a full year, teaching them for six months before the district strictly is obliged to teach them would be a good deal for a basic aid district like the PAUSD.

Posted by Great idea--thanks!, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Oct 13, 2009 at 4:47 pm

Study after study has shown that kids who come into kindergarten without any previous preschool experience are severely disadvantaged in learning from the beginning. This program is therefore a GREAT idea. Hays mom, the achievement gap IS your problem--it's everybody's problem societally and your problem personally if your kids are in classes, as they will be in this PUBLIC school system, with kids who are struggling. Everything we can do to prevent kids from falling behind at the very beginning is so crucial for helping reduce our humongous dropout rate, especially for children of color (for African American boys the dropout rate is nearly 50%).

Thanks to the Heising-Simons Foundation for providing funding for this important program.

Posted by alternate solution, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 5:06 pm

Sounds like a great pilot program!

The district is required to provide services for preschool aged children who qualify for special education.

If standard screening evaluation tools are used, most of these children will fall at or below the 7% in some developmental area to qualify. The district receives special education funding from the state to cover the costs of providing these services--which do not come from the general district fund.

Early intervention has been proven to substantially increase the success of children who need it throughout their school years. The key is having the intervention begin early enough for the children to fully benefit before they lag even further behind from their peers.

For those of us with children in the district, think about the few children in each classroom that clearly need more help than the teacher could provide. Think about if they were identified early enough to get special help in preschool so they could start kindergarten better able to manage themselves, better able to get along with their peers, better able to keep up with the academic expectations of their teachers.

This sounds like a great first step in addressing those needs. This idea has been discussed in the message boards and other forums for a while. There has been a huge demand for Young Fives programs for years. It's been only recently that siblings were not granted preference, which was a ridiculous practice. Good to see that those who need it will finally receive priority.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 11:08 am

Such hatred for Young Fives! Young Fives exists because of the idiotic December cutoff date in our state. Most four-year olds are not ready for kindergarten and any good kindergarten or preschool teacher will tell you that. Sounds like someone didn't get into the PAUSD program and is still bitter about it.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 11:44 am

I don't think anybody hates Young 5s. I think it is a great idea, but I do think it is abused. I think that many who need it are not able to get into the program. The program is something that those in the know manage to get their kids into, when those with late birthdays whose parents have no idea about the program, possibly those who are the eldest child of perhaps not so well educated parents, who would really benefit, are not getting into because the program is already full. Many kindergarten teachers know within a couple of weeks that a certain child is not ready for kindergarten but has no option but to keep them in the classroom as there is no space for them in Young 5s. It would be better to ensure that young five year olds were tested for readiness in early August and then those who failed to make the requirements were offered places. Instead, the present system of filling the program months before the start of kindergarten means that those who most need it are not getting in. Many who may appear to qualify in February/March, suddenly start maturing due to any number of factors and are ready by the time school starts to enter kindergarten. And late birthdays alone is not a sign of readiness just like clinging to Mommy, being shy or having difficulty counting to 20 in the March before kindergarten is the only indicator.

Young 5s is often filled with those whose siblings attended (a younger sibling often matures at a greater speed than the oldest in the family), those whose parents want them to aspire to greatness in sports or those who feel that an additional year to mature will give them a better chance of getting into the better colleges when it is time to compete in that frenzy! These are the people that are giving the Young 5s program a bad name - not the program itself.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 12:42 pm

There is a case to be made that even those kids who are suddenly ready for Kindergarten right before it starts but weren't in February still shouldn't be going to Kindergarten because their peers were ready 6-9 months, possibly even a year before them. They're still behind the kids they'll be starting with in the Fall so they still aren't really ready for Kindergarten compared to those who were ready in February when they registered.

Posted by alternate solution, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 1:10 pm

Erin--Hope you didn't misunderstand my comments. Young fives programs are great. I'm all for expanding them, particularly now that it appears there will be appropriate outreach, objective screening, and a transparent process to assign available slots. This was not the reputation in the past.

As to your most recent comment...

That type of rationale is exactly why the program has earned it's reputation for attracting some parents who want to give their child an edge while taking a spot that should have gone to a child in greater need. Clearly, most parents of children in the program in your stated situation can opt not to send their child to kindergarten at four. They typically have the means to pay for a private young fives program but have taken advantage of the district's subsidized program and admissions process. Looks like Springboard will be targeting resources to subsidize the program for children who demonstrate need and there will be greater follow-through and accountability.

No, we did not consider applying to young fives and did not feel it was the right choice for our family. It's not personal for me.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 1:55 pm

It's not a district "subsidized" program. It's public school. Basically, you're signing a form stating that you're retaining your child for a year. If you want to call it "subsidized" then you have to call all of the PAUSD elementary schools "subsidized." It's considered a choice program just like Spanish or Mandarin Immersion, Ohlone, or Hoover.

Posted by Simon Firth, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Erin -- count me too as someone who supports Young Fives, so long as the children who most need it get into it, which until recently wasn't the case. I also think that the kinder cut-off in this state is too young. While it is where it is, though, I think the Springboard program will be an excellent addition to the district and could well prove even more valuable than Young Fives if we really had to choose between them.

Posted by JSD, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 4:06 pm

Just a few (hopefully) clarifying points:

-the Springboard program is being specifically designed for kids with no preschool experience. This is not a program for special ed kids or "typical" Young 5s.

-these 2 classes will not be "full of kids that they do not have any responsibility to educate" as Hays Mom says above -- they will be kids who would be attending PAUSD schools anyway.