Posted
by Liz Weslander
April 14, 2006 at 8 a.m.
Paying for all day kindergarten
All day kindergarten would help out a lot of people. I don't happen to be one of them, but it's an idea I've always been open to. Because the Legislature is dragging its feet on the funding that would allow for all day kindergarten, the school district is now exploring the idea of having people who want all day kindergarten [pay for it themselves][1]. I don't like this idea at all.Here's why. If they go through with this plan, people for whom money is not an issue will simply plunk down their money for the all day kindergarten. People whose finances are strained enough to qualify for the free lunch program will have the all day fee waived. Those of us in the middle are a little screwed.Our family has been paying a nice little sum each month for the past few years to send our daughters to preschool. We did it because we thought that preschool was important and we knew that public school was on the horizon. We don't want to pay for our kids to go to kindergarten. We need that money for other things - like college savings, or a new roof.So send them to half day and still save the money, you say. Well, yeah, that's what we'll likely do if this "pay for it" plan comes to pass. But here's the rub. I've heard anecdotally, and it stands to reason, that kids who attend all day kindergarten have better honed skills in first grade than those who do half day. Academics are not a problem for my kids, and I know that I can make up any thing they may miss in all day kindergarten at home, but that's not the point. The point is that it's simply not fair. Yes, all day kindergarten will help folks who work full time, but the "pay for it if you want to" model has the potential to give children unequal instruction time on the basis of income. If the school district is going to offer all day kindergarten, they need to offer it to everyone. Or not at all. [1]: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/apr/14/how_much_would_you_pay_allday_kindergarten/?education" target="blank
and 9 others
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says…
Those of us in the middle are screwed. Right on. But if being in the middle was easy, it wouldn't be the middle anymore (and they wouldn't need us).
While I don't believe in holding all children back because one group of parents or another have other things to do with their money, I also can say that it is a fantasy to suggest that any fee-based system will ever evolve into a state funded program. If it starts fee-based, it will NEVER be funded. Unless future parents in the middle learn to protest like the young french. Then who knows.
I also hope that it remains optional regardless of the funding. My boy's pre-school/kindergarten experience was perfect for him. But my daughter is completely different and goes to an expensive (to me, anyway) pre-school and would thrive in an all day kindergarten.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
This ties into Misty's last column about people paying for services such as fire protection. And the same comment I made there applies here: We are coming to a time when the government's role (as provider of services) has changed, radically. Read Olvia Butler's book, "The Parable of the Sower" to get a look at the future. A place where if you want the services the government USED to provide out of tax dollars, you will have to pay extra. When there were more people paying into the system then used it, and the demands to provide services A=Z did not exist, the tax collected could pay for government services. However, with the baby boomers (like myself) aging rapidly and not replacing themselves with MORE people to pick up the slack, there are now fewer tax payers. Couple that with decades of creating government funded programs and services, and you end up with what we are now seeing. More and more "fee-funded" government provided services. Meaning those with the dough can go. Those without (who do not get a "Free Pass" scholarship) can go without. Creating a really cranky middle-class (rightly so). And rampant middle class malcontent has been the basis for a lot of radical changes in this world.....
Luxor (anonymous) says…
I for one am sick of paying for YOUR choice to have children. If parents want all day kindergarten, YOU pay for it. You already get a child tax break that comes out of everyone else's pockets just for creating more little consumers.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"If parents want all day kindergarten, YOU pay for it."
Bingo. Let me ask it this way. Who has the moral obligation to pay for the kindergarten that parents want but refuse to fund? The milkman? Jose the janitor? The lady who does nails down the street?
Making someone else pay for what parents ought to but choose not to is simply theft. The fact that it occurs in little bites and pays for government salaries on the way to a teacher's pocket doesn't change its essence.
Of course 'the middle' gets screwed; that's where the money is. But adding more programs they have to pay for through property and income taxes sure isn't going to change it a whit.
lori (anonymous) says…
I guess I thought it was a good compromise. The bottom line was the state wasn't going to fund it. Many parents say they want it. Do they want it badly enough to pay for it? It looks like the alternative was to say that there wasn't going to be an all day option at all. Isn't this a decent middle ground?
Whatever they decide, I hope that half day kindergarten always remains an option. When a couple of schools had all day kindergarten (including our designated one) I ended up transfering our oldest to a school that did NOT have all day. Not all of us have kids who spend a significant portion of their pre-school days at an organized day care, and I felt that the transition from staying home with me to going to school all day every day was too much for my five year old. Some kids are ready for all day at five, and some aren't. I appreciate that the school district recognized that all day didn't work for everyone and was willing to work with us on this.
I disagree that society has no obligation to pay for school, as some have implied. Luxor, did you not go to school? Do you not drive or ride your bike on publicly funded roads? That's part of our society. I'm inclined to believe that an educated child costs us less than an illiterate, uneducated one.
But I do agree that at some point, there are choices. i'm not sure why we fund sports at school. Physical ed, sure, but sports? New jerseys every couple of years, creation and upkeep of playing facilities, paying a coach? That seems like something that is a private responsibility to me, and money better spent on quality academics. Same with all day kindergarten, in my view. Sure, it sucks if you have to pay for it; but then again, you make the choice to have kids, and you know they are an obligation. Any school, public or private, is not going to meet all of your child's needs. The parents are responsible for what is unmet, be it academic, social, or physical. I think that all day kindergarten falls into this.
We are also in the middle, and provide for the items that we feel are outside the realm of school. We do extra math at home, because I don't feel my kids are doing as well as they should, but I also don't expect the school to privately tutor them. We do foreign language (well, a little); again, it sure would be nice to have that offered at the elementary level, but it's unrealistic at this point. We scrape to pay for private piano lessons and trips to interesting and educational destinations. We hit the library and the dusty bookshelf all the time. These are things that wouldn't break my heart if the school funded and provided; but I also don't feel like they are obligated to do that, and it is important enough to us to do it ourselves. It's our parental responsibility, and allows us to exercise choices that reflect our personal family values.
lori (anonymous) says…
Hmmm, my comment comes across grumpier than I intend. I guess I meant to say I can see the benefit of offering all day kindergarten, and if we had oodles of money ready to go at the state level, I wouldn't have a problem with funding it. But we don't. So we have to decide what is the best use of the resources available. I would rather have fewer kids in the classroom at every level than all day kindergarten. And I think the pay to attend is a good idea that attempts to meet everyone's needs; it's certainly better than nothing.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
I was just talking to my 72 year old southern born mother-in-law about "the good old days" and asking her what types and levels of services used to be provided by the government. The same ones as today, basically, but without much frill. There were no social programs. There were fewer government sponsored health programs. Roads were often full of pot holes (if they were even paved). Schools were fewer and further between and only taught "reading writing and 'rithmetic" There were no fancy home-ec classes; just one lady one apron, and maybe a stove. There were no special programs for special children. You kept up, or got kicked out. If you needed to do more work, to keep from being bored, you did it on your own time. Parents with children in school filled in where they could, and when they wanted special classes they often taught them with the help of contributions or friends. A lot of folks did not own a home, and most homes were much smaller. Many larger houses held 3-4 generations, without anyone thinking that was highly unusual. Then came WWII and the generation of baby boomers were born. Lots more people paying into the tax coffers, higher earnings, higher expectations, and higher promises. Society grew to expect more and more from its government. Lawmakers and leaders were happy to oblige. Many helpful programs were added, making lives last longer with less stress.
Now, once again, there are fewer tax payers then there are people wanting/needing government services. Less money coming in, but no decrease in services. Something has got to give. The government provided services simply cannot stay at their same level, unless those paying taxes are made/asked to pay more. Paying extra to attend school longer is a small thing. It is a choice that people can make if they can afford to do so. Those who can't will probably get scholarships. Those in the middle, as usual, get left holding the bag.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Part II
My parents paid to put me in private schools - with sweat equity. They couldn't afford any frills. But they found ways to get things they thought were necessary. Mom baby sat with the piano teacher's kids. So I got lessons. Dad helped out the farmers during wheat harvest, and the extra money allowed us to travel to see my mom's folks once a year. Mom stayed home (when it was less the practice) and almost lived at our school helping out with things, so we got to go to a school that could teach us about God. And they still paid their taxes to help put other people's children through public schools. What is going to really start getting more people's attention is when we see the erosion,of publicly provided services. They will have to end or be cut back - One way to avoid that, for now, is for some programs to become pay as you go services. So what will have to pay directly for in the future? At first, things like extra kindergarten classes. But then, it will spread to areas long considered the very reason we have governments? How many people can afford to pave their portion of the roads they travel? How many of us would not call the police or fire or an ambulance if we had to pay full price for each service call? How many of you now paying into social security (myself included) honestly think you are going to get your money back when you retire? I am not trying to be flippant or morose. I just think that these kinds of things are going to start becoming realities, sooner then later, if the country as a whole doesn't stop spending more then it/we make. You can't live on credit forever. Sooner or later, there will be a bankruptcy. And the price of it will be paid by us, or our children and their children.
liz (Liz Weslander) says…
There are a lot of good points here, many of which boil down to differing political/economic philosophies.
However, I'm starting to realize that the issue for me is that all day kindergarten seems to be something that is being pushed for to help make life more convenient for parents. How does is it affect the kids in the classroom?
Are half day and full day covering the same amount of material? If so, are the half day kids getting barraged with too much info, or do the full day kids have a bunch of idle time? Do people who have the extra $240 a month to shell out just paying for daycare, or are they paying for more instruction? If it's day care, I'd just as soon do that at home, if it is instruction, I'd like to know, and act accordingly. It just seems like it would be more simple and more fair if all options were available to everyone.
Is this "you can have it but you'll have to pay for it" trick a common occurence in the school system?
Dazie (Aileen Dingus) says…
Posted by Luxor (anonymous) on April 14, 2006 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I for one am sick of paying for YOUR choice to have children. If parents want all day kindergarten, YOU pay for it. You already get a child tax break that comes out of everyone else's pockets just for creating more little consumers.
*************************
Those "little consumers" of today are the doctors and teachers and firefighters of tomorrow Luxor. Do you want an unqualified doctor digging around in your grey matter after you have a stroke? Do you want a firefighter who can't read street signs driving the truck to your house to save you? (and getting lost in the process...)
What a narrow viewpoint you have.
anotherheather (anonymous) says…
My son is in kindergarten 1/2 day, and it seems to me that there is not enough time to do everything they are supposed to do, and have time to socialize a bit. I agree that there should be a choice, some kids are ready for it, others aren't, but the district should definitely offer full day kindergarten without the extra costs.
I don't think it's the classic stay at home mom vs. working moms tired argument. 3 hours just isn't long enough to get kids reading and ready for first grade.
leslie (Leslie vonHolten) says…
There are more academic demands on kindergarteners nowadays--they're benchmarking for No Child Left Behind in 1st grade, which is a huge responsibility for teachers and administrators. If the kids don't perform like these standards require, there goes the funding, there go the good teachers, and there go the schools, there go the property values...
I'm with Lori--this pay-if-you-want option is a great compromise. I want my daughter to go for a full day because it would be a good fit for her, and I'm happy to pay it. I think the fee is fair. Find one full-day preschool in this town that is even close to this price.
And I, for one, would like to say that I think the Lawrence School District does an impressive job.
liz (Liz Weslander) says…
I agree that there are more academic demands on kindergarteners these days, which is why I'd like to know if parents who don't opt for the full day are going to have kids who are going to be behind in first grade. I don't think this question has been addressed, and I think it's a fair one to ask. If a full day is what kids need, then shouldn't a full day be available to everyone?
Maybe some kids aren't ready for a full day when they get to first grade, should we start charging people extra to send their kids to first grade all day? How is kindergarten so drasitcally different that it's okay to do it at that level, and one level higher, it sounds like a stupid idea?
lori (anonymous) says…
My youngest was fine with all day first grade and does not struggle academically in any way, shape, or form; my oldest struggled in first grade. We finally pulled her out partime; so indeed, she continued to go half days to first grade and was homeschooled half days for most of her first grade year. She is in fifth grade and also does not struggle in the least in school.
I am honestly extremely suspicious of the idea that kids will have more time to play in kindergarten if it is all day. Yeah, right. More likely they will just say, great, now we can expose them to even more academic material! It's not like they are going to take the current curriculum and divide it over twice the time. No, I'll bet they add another 3 hours of academics. No thanks; I can review my kids' reading and math at home, and let them play half they day.
If you want to cut school to half days, that's fine with me. I'll pick up the slack at home. I still wish we homeschooled somedays; I miss my kids during the day.
liz (Liz Weslander) says…
Lori, I guess that's what's making me nervous about all this. That is exactly what I think will happen with the academics, and I guess what it comes down to is that I'm nervous that, if we choose half day (which really makes the most sense for us financially considering 240x2 is more than $100 higher than our schooling costs now) I won't be able to suffciently make up that material at home.
I guess I better get over that attitude right now if I want to be happy. At the very least, my kids love field trips and are to the age where they actually ask questions and learn from them. Half days will give me plenty of time to do that.
I still don't think it's fair to offer more instruction time on a fee-based system. And although I'm pretty sure a half day would suit my kids better, I'd sure like option of going full day (without breakig the bank) if it seemed like a better fit. However, I'm not the only one in the school system, and it seems like a lot of other folks like this idea, so I guess I'll just shut up now. :)
JimmyJoeBob (anonymous) says…
Well I have been paying for my kids to be bussed to and from Southwest Junior High for the last five years because we live two blocks within the 2.5 mile bussing area. Do you all want to chip in to help pay that expense.
SAHM2tylrnathan (anonymous) says…
Liz, here is how "all-day" works in my sister's west JoCo district: "Free" kindergarten is half day, then if you choose, you can pay to send your kid to "kindergarten enrichment" the other half day. It is housed in the elementary school but is administered by Parks and Rec. So technically it is NOT all-day k, but half-day plus activities. I don't know what the breakdown is for the curriculum, but I believe they do support the kids' school work. The big working parent "bonus" here is that they have all-day enrichment on many school vacation days, including spring break, meaning mom and/or dad don't even have to take time off to watch the kids on those pesky in-service or early release days. Many of those vacation days include all-day field trips, some educational, some just play.
If it's going to be pay to play, it ought to be admistered by some entity other than the school district. Public school is supposed to be free and equal opportunity. As it stands, there will be lots of families who might benefit from all-day K who will not qualify for the freebie but who can't swing an extra $240 a month. I think the school districts ought to keep their hands clean. IMHO it could set a tempting precedent for districts to start charging for educational services.
Does anybody know if Lawrence also offers an after-school program for a price? Here in Rossville, they offer Prime Time, which is basically in-school babysitting until about 5:00.
leslie (Leslie vonHolten) says…
It's tempting for us parents to think that *everything* hinges on every single decision we make in regard to our kids' education. Sometimes I need to tell myself to step back, take a deep breath, and look at the bigger picture.
From what I've seen, I think the reality is that those who choose half-day K may be a bit behind the first few weeks of 1st grade, but they'll catch up. 1st grade teachers are used to teaching to differing backgrounds: many kids don't even attend K, some attend K at Montessori, some move here from other states/countries with completely different educational experiences. With the exception of those with true learning disabilities who need special services, the kids will always be able to rise to the occassion.
Also, I think the greatest challenge of 1st grade is in the social sphere--a place incredibly difficult for adults to manipulate.
lori (anonymous) says…
I don't hink you should shut up, Liz; I think you bring up some valid arguments for an all day, expense free kindergarten. And according to teacher dh, kids who attend all day kindergarten (especially at risk kids) do better on down the line. Obviously that isn't true for everyone. But other studies show that kids who take piano, who play chess, who do yoga, who get an hour of sunlight exposure a day, on and on--studies show that all these things benefit kids, too. So does quality at home time with a parent or two.
I'm thinking that, if this is causing you alot of angst, you probably don't have to worry one way or another about it; you're a thoughtful enough and involved enough parent that one way or another your kids are going to get a healthy education. It also sounds like you are ripe for PTO presidency; I know of a vacancy; you aren't planning to go to New York, are you?
leslie (Leslie vonHolten) says…
And back to an earlier question you raised, Liz: Yes, I agree--if the district (and the authorities they are required to report to) think that kids need all-day K, then it should be there for everyone.
As with most public education issues, it's a systemic problem, those nearer the bottom scraping for solutions.
My dream outcome would be to abolish the NCLB standardized tests in 1st grade, scale back the academic requirements of K students, and get back to K's original intent: a half-day social forum for kids to ease into the rigors of public education.
But we live in Kansas, where education decisions rarely make sense. Fortunately, I think USD 497 does pretty well in this context. They've made plenty of decisions that have upset me, but in the end I'm still pleased with our school.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Without raising another s*** storm, the other option for parents not happy with how the school systems teach/operate is to try home-schooling. From what I have seen, one of the reasons home schooling has gotten to be more & more popular with parents is because they aren't happy with the education(s) being provided by the government and think they can do better themselves. I'm not saying it's a great solution for many or most folks. Or that kids get a better education from one or the other type of education. Just commenting that it appears to be one result of people becoming upset with the quality or types of educations offered en masse.
As for all day versus half day kindergarten, I was in a generation where the whole concept was new. Kindergarden was optional at the time. Those of us who went half days napped, had our milk, and played. We hardly did more then learn to sit down and listen as a group. It's only been in the last generation or so that kindergarden has become the new first grade, with 5 year olds now expected to be reading by the time they were in the real first grade. I am not sure how or why that change happened. Maybe the kids all got smarter. Maybe the parents just got more ambitious for their children....I don't know.
The theories of education are myraid and interesting. I suppose some of the decisions about education are based upon what is best for children. Some may be based upon what is best for society as a whole.
But who decides what "best" means? What is the ultimate goal of educating children? To be happy? To survive? To become employable? To be good people? Lots of possible goals. So who decides which goal gets the most attention; which goal takes priority and is most important - the school district, the state, or the child's parent?
bookdiva (anonymous) says…
I worked in a school that had three classes of all day kindergarten funded through a grant. It was based on test scores and teacher recommendations, but parents were given the option of opting out. It allowed students to be in smaller classes in the afternoon and learn some of the vital socialization and motor skills needed to succeed as well as get a double dose of the academic lessons. We were also able to take the time (knowing we had twice as much) to figure out what each student's strengths and learning styles were so we could tailor lessons to meet their needs better. Most of our all day kids, even though they were academically behind at the beginning of the year, caught (and many surpassed) the children only going half day.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Sounds like a good option, when money to pay for it is available (or volunteers plentiful). Goes to show, I guess, that the more one on one a child has, the better/more they can learn?
Todd (anonymous) says…
Throughout history richer parents have always had better education options than poorer parents. My guess at what "the middle" means is that parents want to pay for a better education for their kids but cannot. It's sad to hear people putting so much pressure on themselves. It's not a competition. (if it were things would be a lot more interesting)
Lynn731 (anonymous) says…
Your idea doesn't surprise me. Most liberals and democrats think the taxpayer should pay for things like all-day kindergarten. Which is in essence a taxpayer supported baby sitting service for you. If you cannot afford to pay for all the things required to raise kids, you shouldn't have had kids. Don't expect the taxpayer to support your all day babysitting service, don't you suppose that is maybe why the legislature is dragging it's feet? Thank you, Lynn
liz (Liz Weslander) says…
Give me a break Lynn. Maybe if you had bothered to read the conversation going on here, and weren't in the habit of making snap judgement, huge assumptions, and personal attacks, you'd realize I don't even need all day daycare. I like taking care of my kids. My concern is with the school district offering equal opportunities to everyone and maintaining some uniformity in the curriclum.
I do think the free public education is a good use of my tax money (I pay 'em too), but other than that, I think you've totally missed the point. Hope you at least enjoyed your cheap and predictable liberal bashing, because I found it most unimpressive.
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says…
Lynn,
It was unbelievable the refund we got this year! Two kids and all you do is subtract subtract, subtract from your taxable income. I guess I should confess that the reason we had kids was to milk people like you for all you're worth. I was a little uncomfortable joining the conspiracy since I was childless until I was 40. It felt like I was turning to the other side. But guess what!! They serve snacks at the lemasse class, and that along with the diaper changing intructional materials and the powder smells can really get you excited about screwing the taxpayers! Hee Hee Hoo, Baby. Here's the magic, you may think you have something more vauable to spend your money on, but you are wrong. You are to take care of your own kids and take care of mine. If you don't have kids, then more for mine. I LOVE this arrangement, and I thank you so very much. I know you work hard, and these property taxes are wacked. Hang in there man. Oh yea, Lynn, careful around the school zones. wouldn't want you to get a hunnert dollar ticket or anything.