Will the real TK stand up?
Ongoing confusion over the program
It’s getting so that understanding the budgetary machinations of Transitional Kindergarten requires a master’s degree, or maybe a Little Orphan Annie Secret Decoder Pin.
In the month since Gov. Brown released his 2012-13 budget plan and recommended canceling Transitional Kindergarten (TK), supporters have found it hard to keep track of what the administration is proposing and where the savings would come from.
They were further confounded yesterday, when the State Legislative Analyst’s Office released its review of the governor’s education budget. Although the LAO seconded the governor’s call to eliminate funding for TK, it seemed to contradict some of the administration’s figures. (See John Fensterwald’s article today for the LAO’s review of the entire education budget proposal).
“At this point, it seems like the Department of Finance is making it up as they go along; we’ve had three different versions of the program in the last four weeks,” said State Senator Joe Simitian.
His bill, SB 1381, which the Legislature passed in 2010, moved up the entry age for kindergarten to September 1 from December 1, phasing it in over three years beginning next fall. It also created the TK program for the children who turn five during that three-month period and are no longer eligible for kindergarten. Instead, they would get TK one year and regular kindergarten the next.
By keeping the age change but eliminating funding for TK, Gov. Brown estimates the state will save about $224 million in ADA dollars next year in reduced kindergarten enrollment. When Sen. Simitian pointed out at a legislative hearing a few weeks ago that districts would still get the same amount of money for another year under the declining enrollment program, a Finance Department official said that had been factored in. Not so, according to yesterday’s LAO report. It said the Legislature would also have to “make a corresponding change to the ‘declining enrollment’ adjustment.” In other words, eliminate that, too.
Trailing language
The administration has been similarly vague on the options for those four-year-olds whose families first thought they’d be going to kindergarten, then to Transitional Kindergarten. As we reported here, at that same legislative hearing in January, Finance Department officials initially said that districts could provide TK, but wouldn’t receive any state funds to pay for it. Then they said the state would provide ADA funds once the children turned five.
Sen. Simitian again asked for clarification and it came last week in the budget trailer language, which once again left Sen. Simitian perlexed. It keeps the age cut-off dates, but lets individual districts decide if they want to run Transitional Kindergarten programs. Then the trailer bill says something that both Sen. Simitian and the group Preschool California suspect the administration never intended. It allows school districts to “admit to a kindergarten at the beginning of the school year, a child having attained the age of five years at any time during the school year with the approval of the parent or guardian.”
It also apparently makes the districts eligible for ADA funds even for the four-year olds. That’s how it seemed to Sen. Simitian, and that’s how it appeared to the Legislative Counsel when he asked that office for an interpretation.
According to Preschool California, more than 100 school districts have either started TK pilot programs on their own or indicated that they plan to launch them in the fall despite the governor’s proposal. At least one district, San Francisco Unified, told parents not to bother enrolling their children for TK, because there won’t be a program without state funding.
That could create unequal access to education for children, with one district offering a version of TK while a neighboring district does not. If the latter district is low-income, then there may be an equal protection violation. At the very least, said Sen. Simitian, it’s going to create chaos and anxiety up and down the state.
“I don’t mean to say this with attitude, but I’ve got so much frustration at this point,” said the senator. The Legislature already debated and approved the bill, “and now the administration is trying to revisit the issue through the budget process. That’s completely inappropriate,” said Sen. Simitian, adding that if the governor wants to change policy, he should introduce a bill like everyone else.
12 Comments
Trackbacks
- The Educated Guess: Will the real Transitional Kindergarten stand up : SCOE News Reader
- LAO praises Brown budget … | Thoughts on Public Education
* Why was there not more effort made to identify/ reach out to the other districts that are opting out of TK? For example, an Edsource article that came out last week identified that Garden Grove, a leader in academic achievement, will not be providing TK. This identification came from a simple email query of a diverse cross-section of districts.
* Why weren’t any school districts that are opting out (like San Francisco USD) interviewed/ quoted? This is a critical perspective that is missing from this article.
* Why is this article not providing the other side of the story: TK is an expensive, underfunded mandate, and funding uncertainty makes opting out of TK a logical choice for districts? The alternative for schools is to pay for all the TK expenses that go beyond ADA revenue by encroaching on funding for students in all other grade levels.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
W Salazar, I did write about San Francisco Unified last month. You can read that here. It’s not clear how TK would be an underfunded mandate or encroach on funding for other grade levels. Under the legislation, the very students who are no longer eligible for regular kindergarten would be the only children eligible for TK, so the program is a wash financially. Schools have the option of creating separate TK classes at each school, of offering TK at specific schools with the classes open to all the students who fall into the TK category, or incorporating TK into regular kindergarten using differentiated instruction. That’s what San Francisco was going to do. Schools would stand to lose money without TK because their enrollment would decline.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Why not just simply delay TK’s implementation ?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@SB, one of the questions would be what exactly it means to delay it. Would you go back to the 2011-2012 rules that say that the cutoff date is December, or would you go to the new November cutoff date but no TK?
The “savings” to the state in not implementing TK comes from not paying ADA on November-born 4 year olds.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I expect this TK issue affects the state preschools as well, because kids some of the kids who would move into kindergarten will instead attend or remain in state preschools, in turn displacing some of those kids out of programs.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
By delay, I simply meant don’t change anything from this current school year and postpone the gradual implementation by a few years (say 2014). By then the budget situation will hopefully be clearer.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
My daughter will miss the cut off for this year for Kindergarten. Her DOB 11/13/07. We were never interested in TK and want to enroll her in Kindergarten (as we deem her ready us, teachers, pediatrician …) and San Jose Unified will not even let us pursue that option for early admission til after the school year starts with her in TK. They told us last month that if TK gets cut then we will have no recourse for anything. Don’t understand how one half of the new law can be enforced (age) and not the other half (TK). No one seems to know what they are doing and it is beyond frustrating.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Rachael, There is a process for appealing to school districts to enroll a four-year-old into kindergarten who will turn five during the school year. However, according to the California Dept. of Education, “the CDE has no authority to require districts to admit or accelerate under-age children.”
As of now, Transitional Kindergarten is state law and it will continue to be unless the legislature overturns the law. Many school districts are holding off on enrolling students in TK for 2012-13 until they’re sure that it will be funded. There is an effort underway by groups such as Preschool California, to urge Gov. Brown to withdraw his proposal for eliminating TK funding when he releases his revised budget plan in May. Again, even if the Governor retains that proposal, it would still need approval of the legislature.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
There is an option (and I know people who are doing this) and that is to put the child in a private school for K then back to public for 1st (many preschools also already have what is essentially TK). Public school advocates will not like that (neither will parents who want to have consistency), but remember, the whole point of the shifting dates is merely to save the state money by keeping some people out of the public system for an extra year. Kicking those kids down a 1-year long road. Maybe the next money-saving move will be to eliminate Kindergarten altogether.. :-P
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I am with Rachael, as my daughter’s B=Day is early Nov too. This is extremely frustrating and with no unbiased direction provided by the state Senators or the School Districts. I have been to School Board meetings, but they are not allowed to have a conversation with the public, they only do their business in a public forum. The Superintendent gave me a similar response as Rachaels. With the school district looking to keep low classroom teacher to student ratios, and the state not wanting to pay the ADA – it seems to me that neither of them are looking for the child’s best interest, just the money aspect.
As a parent, I am not sure if I should be for or against the Trailer Bill. One on hand it allows my daughter to be admitted based on her age. On the other hand, if my school district does not rely on ADA, it relies on property taxes, and the Trailer Bill makes TK optional for them, they will not offer it. What is the real deal?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity