LAST MINUTE DECISION MAKING

This has been an exhausting period since I was first alerted to the dramatic policy reversal that PGUSD suddenly announced at the very end of March. That was when I heard from other parents of preschoolers about the decision to fire teachers and to ignore California's Universal TK mandate and instead to deny TK to the youngest 25% of children in each grade cohort.

WE HAVE APPROPRIATELY HIGH EXPECTATIONS THAT MATCH OUR PRIORITIES

We are so fortunate to live in a community funded district (AKA "Basic Aid"), which means that the homeowners here pay so much in property taxes that we exceed the minimum spending guaranteed by the state. In fact, our taxes afford us the ability to spend 44% more per student than the average district across the state, and many of us made great sacrifices (financial and otherwise) to join this community precisely because we invest so heavily in our schools and we all believe that great schools make great communities.

DASHED DREAMS

We all assumed that our district's increasing revenues from taxes (consistently 5-6%/yr), and decreasing enrollment due to demographic shifts (about 2% this year), would lead to a golden period when we could expect even smaller class sizes, greater attention to our children with diverse needs, and improved social, emotional, and academic outcomes. Unfortunately, the board finalized several deeply disappointing decisions in the meeting last week. The board finalized the budget that lays off several teachers of our youngest learners and the board voted 4-1 to deny access to TK to 25% of eligible children based on their birthday.

POOR PRIORITIES

The district promised the board that they were allowed to approve this policy reversal and ignore the California Universal TK law because we are a "Basic Aid" district and so the district claimed that it is too much of a "fiscal burden" to provide equal access to all TK-eligible kids in our community. Our much higher per-student spending (44% higher than average) contradicts that point. To put it into perspective, our district expects to have $48M in revenue this coming year and yet we are supposed to believe that in the past 5 years that we have known about the 2025-2026 launch of Universal TK, we have not been able to figure out how to reprioritize spending to find as little as the remaining $150k required. In fact, 94% (16 of 17) of other "Basic Aid" districts across the state spending the same or up to 20% less per student are offering Universal TK next year. Those other districts are facing the same constraints that we are, only worse because they have less money to spend on each student. It is just that the other districts prioritized equality and compliance with the Universal TK law.

DID OUR EFFORTS PAY OFF? WAS THERE ANY GOOD NEWS?

Well, sort of. Many of us attended the past several board meetings and spoke up in protest. Some speakers were brave enough to share their very personal stories that we will all remember. It is traditionally difficult to get a school board to push back against its district and noticeably alter policy. We did get part of the way there.

The district did decide to offer children affected by the policy (those who turn 4 between June 3 and September 1, 2025) a free preschool option, that they call "PreK." This is a bit of a half-baked idea that was first presented just two days before it was approved as an attempt to appease those of us arguing for equal access to TK. I suppose it is better than nothing, but it is still discriminatory and it still leaves the youngest 25% of kids in each cohort feeling isolated from their peers when they go to kindergarten. The "PreK" offering seemed to be enough to persuade three of the five board members to support the birthday discrimination policy.

INABILITY TO GIVE A DIRECT ANSWER TO A DIRECT QUESTION

The fourth board member appeared moved by our equality arguments and so he asked if families of kids who are denied TK because they have a summer birthday would be allowed to join TK the following year. This is not an uncommon request for some families and it would switch a kid from being the youngest in his class to being the oldest in his class. The district superintendent said, "We allow that on a case-by-case basis. It would be considered part of our retention policy, but we do allow that for any grade level. So, I mean that would be determined, you know, through a conversation with the family, and the staff, and the teacher, and the administrator at the site." That non-answer wasn't exactly a yes and we all know that the district staff--who seem to get a say based on this response--will strongly oppose allowing any 5 year old summer birthday children into TK for exactly the same reason that they want to deny any 4 year old summer birthday children into TK. Still, that seemed to be enough to persuade the fourth member to support the birthday discrimination policy.

The fifth board member, Trustee Laura Ottmar, was a true hero of the night. She battled through a medical emergency to still participate and vigorously voiced many of the same concerns that we had.

WHAT WAS THE TAKEAWAY?

In theory, if a family has a child who turns 4 between June 3 and September 1, 2025, the family should be able to choose between the free "PreK" or other traditional fee-based preschool options for the 2025-2026 school year before their child enters kindergarten in the 2026-2027 school year. Depending on how much faith you put into the non-answer provided by the superintendent, that family may also be eligible to request that their child be allowed to enroll into TK in the 2026-2027 school year instead of kindergarten. By the same logic, any family that has a child who turns 5 between June 3 and September 1, 2025 who was planning on enrolling their child in kindergarten this year should be eligible to request that their child enroll in TK instead.

WHAT'S NEXT?

For sure we want to support and re-elect Trustee Ottmar (Area 1) whose term expires soon. The parents that led this effort are still brainstorming ideas of how best to move forward beyond that. Whenever they come up with anything definitive, I will be sure to share it with you so we can mobilize to improve the district. Many of us, like me, were not directly affected by this policy reversal. We were simply so upset by the injustice of it all, especially the injustice toward the youngest in our community, that we could not just sit quietly.

Let me know if you have any ideas in the meantime.

Taylor Moulton

moulton.lane@gmail.com

(831) 200-4040