This is not intended as an argument for, or against, all-day kindergarten (a "brief").  It is an effort to present, and sort out, as honestly and impartially as possible, some observations pro and con that have come to me from the community.  (It concludes with a brief explanation of my probable vote on the issue.)

There are at least two categories of observations.

• Some involve the substance of the proposal, its educational merits.  For example, “What is the evidence there is any long-term educational benefit from an all-day, as distinguished from half-day, kindergarten program?”  A related set of issues concerns the possible adverse educational impact of moving resources to the kindergarten program from whatever is now being funded with that money.

• Others involve questions of procedure, appearance, timing, law, funding, and equity – issues important in their own right, but existing independently of whether all-day kindergarten is substantively sound.

1. Intuitively, it is usually much more cost effective to spend money on programs that are preventative in a child’s early years rather than programs that are remedial in that child’s later years.  (As one extreme example, it costs less to keep a young person in the nation’s most expensive private colleges than in prison.)

2. There is some research to back up the intuitive expectation that early intellectual stimulation and development will help a child in later years.  At least one study I’ve seen found improvement in reading skill in high school seniors that could be traced back to kindergarten.

3. On the other hand, the quality of educational research is not always what one would hope, and there are some other findings suggesting the benefits of early education fade after third or fourth grade.

4. Some local critics of the increased kindergarten funding go so far as to assert that there is no written curriculum for kindergarten; that each kindergarten teacher is “doing their own thing.” They say there is little evidence of any educational benefit from any kindergarten; that our district’s program is primarily “baby sitting” for parents.  (These critics have neither been asked for, nor provided, any factual backup for these assertions.  The videotape of a January 1996 District Parent Organization presentation by Tim Grieves and Terry Dervrich, which I have seen and is available to interested members of the public, puts forth a contrary position on these allegations.)

5. Of course, the real issue for the school board is not only the benefit of any kindergarten on a child’s later education.  It is the benefit of the additional education represented by an all-day program.

6. The program’s critics assert (again, without backup) that much of the additional time goes to such things as lunch, naps, snack time, extra recess – and “getting ready time” for all of the above.  Moreover, they suggest the extra time actually may be harmfully excessive for at least some children, and that it provides little or no educational benefit to any.  (These allegations are also dealt with in the video referred to in paragraph 4, above.)

7.  On the other hand, our Director of Instruction, Pam Ehly, and those kindergarten teachers who have spoken to the issue, express the view that there is an additional educational benefit to having more time with the kindergarten students.  They deny that the extra time is “wasted” in the ways asserted by the critics.  But, like the program’s critics, its supporters have also neither been asked for, nor yet offered on their own, independent district data proving (or suggesting) an additional educational benefit for our district’s students.  Such assertions may be intuitive (that more is, after all, more), but we do not, at this point, have anything beyond the videotape describing students’ activities during a typical half, and all-day, kindergarten program.  (An elementary principal, who supports the values of the all-day program, went on to note, “kindergarten must have a planned curriculum that is developmentally appropriate.”)

8. There may be data within our own district to help us tease out some insights on that issue. That is, correcting for demographic and similar variables, can we identify any differences between, say, the reading and math test scores of our district’s fourth graders who were in half-day programs and those who were in all-day kindergarten programs?  So far as I know we have not, yet, spent the time and money necessary to obtain and evaluate that data (if, indeed, that would be a worthwhile effort and the data is even available).

9. Whatever the data from our own district might show, the data from other districts’ research would certainly seem, on first impression, to support the value of full-day versus half-day kindergarten.

In this connection, we are all indebted to Louis Messerle.  This concerned citizen and parent has shared with the board, and its predecessors, his memo, “A Survey, With Brief Summaries, of the Literature on Advantages versus Disadvantages of Full-Day versus Half-Day Kindergarten,” undated, but most recently attached to a letter of February 9, 1999.

The studies he has found seem consistent with those I have read.

He candidly includes references to the handful of studies finding no benefit from either half-day or full-day kindergarten, and another handful noting an advantage from full-day kindergarten that is, however, statistically insignificant.

But the bulk of his report are the much more impressive 33 studies documenting not only (a) the immediate and long term benefits to children of kindergarten programs in general, but also (b) the statistically significant additional benefits of the full-day programs.

Another member of the community (whom I would identify and thank, but I have not yet obtained her permission to do so) kindly provided me with similar reports of research from ERIC (a link to about one million articles about education).  The studies she relayed to me varied somewhat from those provided by Louis Messerle, but were, for the most part, consistent.  (A couple re-enforced the observation of the principal quoted in paragraph 7, above, regarding the importance of an appropriate kindergarten curriculum.)

10.   Some of the all-day opponents acknowledge that there may be some research support for the proposition that kindergarten is academically useful for “at risk” children – those who may come from homes with relatively little academic and cultural support of cognitive development. However, they assert, their own children are better off at home than in any kindergarten program.  Indeed, some claim to have seen research that kindergarten can actually diminish the academic accomplishment of a child from a privileged home. This leads them to a variety of conclusions:  (a) that parents should be free to keep their children out of kindergarten entirely (which they are; it is not required), or (b) have the option for half-day programs (see paragraph 12, below). Some also urge the school board to (c) abolish kindergarten entirely, or (d) reduce all schools to half-day programs, or (e) leave the present disparity between elementary schools.  (In response, an elementary principal e-mails me, “Most voices do not speak for ALL; the Board and folks in my position must.”)

11.  Over the past 25 years, the overwhelming majority of Iowa’s elementary schools have gone from no, or half-day, kindergarten programs to full-day programs. (In 1974-75 there were 77 all-day and 312 half-day; in 1997-98 there were 279 all-day and 47 half-day.) Although I seldom find persuasive the argument that “everybody’s doing it,” and have no hesitation whatsoever in being the only district “out of step” – if we have the research to support our policy – in this instance the majority’s switch involves both professional and legislative response to research findings. Indeed, in fairness to our district it was the judgment of this board’s predecessors that this district should also have an all-day program (see paragraph 1 in the section below).

12.  In addition to (or perhaps as a consequence of) the argument (not yet supported) that a full day of kindergarten may actually be harmful to some children (see paragraphs 6 and 10, above) there is the objection that at least some parents actually prefer a half-day program. A universal all-day kindergarten policy, it is urged, deprives them of an option that they now have. This may end up being true. However, a number of alternatives have at least been discussed.

(a)  One option is to offer nothing but all-day kindergarten. Parents would retain the option of keeping their children out of kindergarten entirely. But their only option for enrolling them would be in a full-day program.

(b)  A second option would be to offer only all-day kindergarten, but give parents willing to make a year long commitment to a half-day program the choice of picking up their child prior to lunch every day (or bringing them for afternoons only). In other words, the option would be for “half of an all-day program” rather than a “half-day program.”  The disadvantage of this option is that, I am told, a “half-day” curriculum – if it is to be the “planned curriculum that is developmentally appropriate” (see paragraph 7, above) – cannot be provided with half of an all-day curriculum.  (It would also create some social problems, disappointment, and discontinuity for a child who knew she was “missing out” on what her classmates were getting during the other half-day.) The advantage is that this form of half-day would be available at every elementary school, and thus more convenient for parents. (The year long commitment would be required to maintain the stability and budget planning necessary for the children, teacher and school.)

(c)  A third option would be Board member Matt Goodlaxson’s suggestion that a half-day program (designed with a half-day program curriculum) be available at one or more elementary schools.  The advantage would be that the planned curriculum would be appropriate to the available time, and all children would be leaving at the same time.  The disadvantages would be the extra travel required of most parents, and possibly the increased cost (per kindergarten child-hour).

13.  There is, of course, the question of the adverse impact on the educational programs that will end up with larger class sizes as a result of shifting resources from the junior highs and high schools to kindergarten programs.

(a)  The impact on average high school class size would, in fact, be minimal.  It represents a small fraction of one person per class on average.

(b)  The research tends to indicate that class size is of greatest significance K-3, with progressively less significance in later years.  It suggests that there is a difference between, say, 15 versus 22 students in a classroom that can be perceived in test results and other ways. However, it's very difficult to detect any difference in learning between a class of, say, 27 and one of 29 -- a difference well beyond what would result from this funding proposal.

(c)  Having said this, the administrative realities associated with matching teachers, subjects, classrooms and students are such that some secondary students may be adversely affected in some way, average class sizes aside.  And, clearly, one cannot make the case that secondary school instruction will be improved as a result of this insignificant increase in class size.

(d)  None of this makes the funds shift into a good idea; it just means that the resulting, almost imperceptible, increase in high school class size may not be the best argument as to why it shouldn’t be done.

1. The Board made a promise to parents and the community years ago that we would, by now, have all-day kindergarten in all elementary schools.  Some schools would get it before others.  We’d have to phase it in, but at a rate of four schools per year.  If all schools were patient eventually they, too, would have it.  This progression slowed, and then stopped altogether.  Of course, the board can always take the stance chosen by Louisiana's Governor Long when asked what should be told constituents who wanted to know why a promised bridge hadn't been built: "Just tell 'em I lied."  This far north, however, that much political candor makes us a little uncomfortable.

2. A troublesome legal and ethical complication is that for years the State has been giving us money expressly targeted for all-day kindergarten, on the condition and assumption that's what we were spending it on.  Like the federal government's "borrowing" from Social Security to build bombers, we have been "borrowing" from the kindergarten fund to pay high school and other expenses.  However easy it may be to become accustomed to spending other people’s money, it’s a little difficult to sustain the case that ordering the secondary school kids to stop stealing money from the little kids is somehow depriving the older kids of a rightful entitlement.

3. There is a serious equity issue at this time.  Some parents have all-day kindergarten available as an option and others do not.  It's as if West High had a music program and City High – although promised one – did not.  Of course, this is not an argument for all-day kindergarten.  Obviously, the equity issue could be as easily resolved by abolishing all-day kindergarten in all schools (as some have proposed) as by extending it to those that do not now have it.  As it is, however, the deprived parents really do have a legitimate complaint.

4. Although I have not seen the numbers, it is asserted that the differential between the have and have-not elementary schools is causing some skewing in our elementary school enrollment numbers. That is, parents who have the option are disproportionately choosing the schools that do have all-day kindergarten for their kids, and opting out of those that do not.  Naturally, in succeeding years they then want to leave their child with his or her classmates in the same school. (See paragraph 12 in the section above.)

5.  There’s a political (in the good sense) and economic issue as well.  Polls indicate “education” is now one of the hot button interests of voters.  As a result, elected officials in the federal, and state governments all across this country – including Iowa – are offering proposals to “improve education.”  One of the most popular is reducing class size, and otherwise focusing on the quality of K-3.  For us to complete our all-day kindergarten program is consistent with this focus.

But there are observations, and arguments, that cut against expanding all-day kindergarten as well.

6.  There’s a seeming discordance between the board’s struggle to cut $700,000 from next year’s budget – by eliminating $14,000 to $50,000 items one at a time -- and then turning right around and finding $300,000 to transfer into kindergarten programs.

7. The decision to fund all-day kindergarten does not fully reflect the process I have called for in my objections to the MARS reductions (“School Board Budget Cuts: How I Am Voting and Why”) – presumably equally applicable in this context.  (In brief, (a) What was the original need? (b) Does it still exist? (c) Does it go to one of the district’s “core competencies”? (d) What are the alternative means for meeting it? (e) Which is the most cost effective? (f) What are the results from a pilot project that tests a new method as compared with the present system?) There are reasons (some of them set forth here), including a substantial body of research, as to why an analysis of the all-day kindergarten issue really is different from the MARS choice. But I would acknowledge there are some similarities, too.

8. The board is just beginning to look at “long range planning” and goal setting.  Presumably a decision of the import, and financial magnitude, of funding all-day kindergarten would better be made after – or during the course of – that process rather than before it has even begun. 

These are the issues as I see them.  Clearly, they cut forcefully in both directions. This document is not structured as an argument, or brief, to justify a particular outcome. It’s an effort to utilize community input to demonstrate, as candidly as possible, just how difficult the decision really is.

What I find decisive in this close call are the issues involving equity, honesty and law (State financing). Especially is this so when they are coupled with what seem to be substantial research data supporting reasonable inferences regarding the substantive value of the program for students’ education – and, thus, ultimately the possible long term cost savings as well.

Therefore, if and when required to vote on the issue my current inclination is to vote to extend the all-day program to all our elementary schools at this time.

But I would always like more data, and answers to some of the substantive questions and conflicting assertions noted above.  And as that additional data, research and available options suggest contrary conclusions, or other, more cost effective approaches, I am always prepared to abandon a previously held position – now or in the future.