Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Early Learning Preschool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District 41 outlines preschool strengths, space limits and next steps as enrollment lags
Summary
District 41 staff reviewed the preschool program at Forest Glen Elementary, highlighting credentialed staff and blended classrooms while identifying inadequate indoor gross‑motor space, storage and shared administrative capacity; the board directed further outreach and analysis before deciding on grant strategy.
District 41 administrators on Wednesday presented a review of the district preschool program and listed steps to grow enrollment while preserving program quality.
Molly (executive director for student services) told the board the preschool runs at Forest Glen Elementary with two daily sessions across six classrooms — including one bilingual classroom — and that each classroom pairs one teacher with two paraeducators. She said teachers in the program are “triple licensed” (preschool, special education and ESL), and described the classrooms as mixed‑age, play‑based and designed to target literacy, math, language and social‑emotional development.
Staff said the program’s total capacity is roughly 170 students; enrollment in November stood at 131. Molly described the program as a state‑funded “Preschool for All” model that prioritizes students who meet at‑risk criteria. She said screening dates are offered seven times during the year and that students can begin as soon as a week after their screening and paperwork are complete.
The district’s goal‑3 subcommittee, which included preschool staff, administrators, parents and community partners, celebrated the classroom staffing and access to elementary resources such as libraries and buddy classrooms. But it identified four main challenges: limited indoor gross‑motor space, insufficient storage for preschool materials, constrained room to grow, and shared administrative support with the elementary school.
To address those issues, the committee recommended: (1) investigating why families choose private preschools over the district program, (2) exploring partnerships with private providers (the GECRC and YMCA were discussed by the committee as examples), (3) studying what physical space would be required to expand District 41 preschool offerings, and (4) developing a brand and communication plan to boost community awareness.
Board members asked about multi‑year enrollment trends and whether the district should pursue federal or state grant funding. Staff noted the Preschool for All grant requires that 80% of slots be reserved for students who meet the at‑risk definition, which limits the number of tuition slots the district can offer under that model. As one administrator put it, choosing to follow the PFA requirements would constrain expansion to available at‑risk students; operating a non‑PFA or tuition model would allow the district to expand to meet demand if funding and staffing permit.
The presentation closed with next steps: further outreach and data collection to identify populations not currently served, continuing screening dates, and developing a communication strategy to increase parent awareness. The board did not take a final vote on a change of program model but directed staff to continue analyses and report back.
