Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Childcare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weston County school board discusses school-based childcare and junior-kindergarten options amid local daycare downsizing
Summary
Board members and residents discussed responses after a local daycare reduced capacity, including exploring junior kindergarten, repurposing school space, and funding options such as ADM counts, Title I and grants; no formal decision was made and funding/staffing questions remain.
Board members and residents spent the longest portion of their meeting discussing local childcare after a nearby center reduced enrollment.
A resident (Speaker 7) told the board a local daycare had downsized and urged the district to consider junior kindergarten or a pre-K academy, citing conversations with Brandon Crosby of Campbell County schools and with Fremont County 2 about funding strategies. “I just thought it might be worth you guys looking at it,” the resident said, and urged a community survey to gauge support.
Board members and administrators replied that space could be available as district enrollment declines and offered preliminary ideas for using school facilities. “One of the things Brad would communicate is that there’s probably going to be space in the near future as our district continues to shrink,” said Speaker 1, suggesting the high-school library or outback area as potential sites, though he emphasized that remodeling (toilet fixtures, playgrounds) would be required.
Francie (Speaker 12), speaking for the children’s center and Region 3 services, provided the meeting’s clearest funding details: childcare and preschool are primarily funded by tuition and grants, the center receives about $50,000 a year from TANF to reserve 18 TANF slots, and Region 3’s state funding is based on annual counts (May 1 and Dec. 1). She said Crook and Weston County together account for the region’s count and that county funding is a small match, noting, “Weston County gives us $12,000 as a portion of our 3% match for state funding.”
Board members repeatedly cautioned that funding and staffing posed the principal barriers to a district-run program. Speaker 4 said Title I funds had been discussed previously but that the district’s Title I allocation currently does not cover all existing staff costs, and warned against relying on federal funds that can fluctuate. Speaker 6 added that major maintenance funds likely could not be used for the renovations needed to convert rooms into childcare classrooms and that any renovation costs would likely come from the general fund.
Several participants contrasted junior kindergarten models. The resident (Speaker 7) said some districts count juniors in average daily membership (ADM) so districts can receive funding for them; Francie and others said some programs in other districts rely on a mix of Title I, BOCES and grant funding. No consistent funding plan emerged.
No motion or formal direction to pursue a specific program passed. The board treated the conversation as an initial community brainstorming session and directed staff and trustees to gather more information about funding mechanisms and space feasibility before any formal proposal.
The next procedural step noted at the meeting was to collect further data and—if warranted—place a draft junior-kindergarten or pre-K proposal on a future agenda for formal consideration.
