Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the UPK Lottery topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Parent urges district policy after twins split in UPK lottery; board and staff offer follow-up

East Islip Union Free School District Board of Education · July 19, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A parent told the East Islip board the district’s UPK lottery separated her twins; the board president defended district practice and staff and a South Shore representative offered to clarify wait-list procedures and follow up offline.

Megan Brown, a parent of incoming universal prekindergarten students, told the East Islip Union Free School District Board that her twins were given widely different lottery numbers — Peyton at 80 and Riley at 217 — for 78 available UPK slots, and urged the board to adopt a policy to keep multiples together for developmental and family reasons.

"It would be detrimental to their development," Brown said in a public comment, describing more than a month of outreach to district staff and a conversation she said she had with her state assemblyman. Brown asked the board to place a formal resolution on its next old-business agenda to create a plan for families with twins or multiples entering UPK.

Board President Gordon responded that he and others had personal experience with lotteries and that the district’s current practice is one application per student. Gordon objected to asking taxpayers to subsidize a second free UPK slot for one family when many other families receive none, saying, "I'm not going to vote for that." He suggested parents who want both children in the same program can pay for the additional placement.

District staff said they had not found written New York State Education Department guidance that would require a district-level multiple-pupil policy; they offered to follow up and clarify details. Ann Marie, a representative from South Shore (a third-party UPK provider discussed during the meeting), explained how wait-list calls and enrollments are managed and said seat offers depend on families declining spaces in other programs.

Parents cited specific lottery numbers and expressed frustration about communication: Brown said she received different information about screening and registration for her children and asked the district to provide clearer notice to families and to report back at the board’s next meeting. District staff suggested continuing the conversation offline with the South Shore representative and invited Brown to do so.

The board did not adopt a policy at the meeting; staff confirmed the adopted budget did not allocate additional funds to provide seats to families on the UPK waiting list.