District staff and trustees spent a substantial portion of the April 3 meeting discussing how Pacific Grove Unified will respond to California’s universal pre‑K (UPK) timeline and whether to admit children born in the summer months to district TK classes in 2025–26.

Larry Hedquist, executive director of educational services, reviewed the legislative history and the phased expansion that led to the state’s UPK roll‑out. He described three options for PGUSD: maintain the current cutoff (June 2) and defer expansion; adopt the state’s full September 1 cutoff (which would require smaller class sizes and additional staffing consistent with UPK apportionment rules); or adopt the September 1 cutoff while retaining the district’s current class‑size maximum and adding non‑teaching support staff to meet the adult‑to‑student ratios required for early‑enrollment students.

The district recommended Option 1 — keep the current June 2 cutoff for planning for next school year — citing immediate fiscal constraints and the lack of a UPK apportionment for basic‑aid districts like Pacific Grove. Superintendent Dr. Linda Adamson told the board staff and trustees are continuing to pursue state advocacy on funding and would re‑evaluate after preregistration and any state decisions.

Why it matters: the state’s UPK expansion changes which children are entitled to transitional kindergarten; for families with summer births, the choice affects whether a child starts in TK at their neighborhood school or waits to enter kindergarten. Parents and a TK teacher urged the board to adopt the UPK expansion or, at minimum, adopt local measures to keep summer‑born children with their neighborhood peers.

Comments from teachers and parents: Erica Chavez, a TK teacher who also identified herself as PGTA vice‑president, said TK instruction provides specific social‑emotional and executive‑functioning supports and urged the board to consider a fiscal compromise (option 3) if option 2 is cost‑prohibitive: “We are a culture of we, and that includes our youngest learners,” she said. Several parents described the anxiety that uncertain placements cause for very young children who anticipate attending their neighborhood school.

Board concerns and next steps: trustees asked technical questions about adult‑to‑student ratios, class‑size maxima, and the district’s authority as a basic‑aid LEA. Staff answered that early‑enrollment (admitting children younger than the current cutoff) would change the adult:student ratio from 1:12 to 1:10, reduce maximum class size from 24 to 20 under UPK rules, and create incremental costs the district would have to cover if it does not receive state apportionment funds. Staff recommended maintaining the June‑2 cutoff for the 2025–26 planning cycle and reviewing decisions after May registration totals and any state funding guidance arrive.

Taper: Board members emphasized they value early education and community continuity. Staff said they will contact affected families directly, continue advocacy for funding, and return to the board with enrollment figures and a recommendation once preregistration closes.