I am shocked and disappointed that the New Kensington-Arnold School Board voted to reduce kindergarten classes to half-days for the 2013-14 school year.
I can't believe that this decision came without prior notification to parents. I regularly communicate with Greenwald Elementary, the kindergarten administrator and the director of YMCA Childcare, but I never heard that half- versus full-day kindergarten was up for a vote.
It is unfair to vote on such an important matter without properly notifying parents. After the vote, my husband found the meeting agenda on the district's website, and this item is not listed.
It is also disheartening to read in the VND that “finances were a factor;” that because “80 percent of the district's kindergarten students haven't attended a preschool program,” entering full-day kindergarten would be a “difficult adjustment” and the board “can reverse course in the future if they (sic) find the half-day classes are detrimental.”
We're going to wait to see if this decision is detrimental? Why are we holding back students who are prepared for full-time kindergarten because some are not? This decision is not in the best educational interest of all students.
I'm requesting the board reconsider this vote and/or provide parents a full-day/half-day option, with eligibility for full-day determined by student readiness.
If you would like to sign a petition to repeal this decision and return to full-time kindergarten, go to change.org and search NKASD.
These concerns need to be publicly addressed.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.