I stumbled on this interesting bit from the Heritage Foundation: Oklahoma: High Marks for Pre-K Spending, Low Marks for Reading Achievement: (My emphasis throughout)

This clearly begs the question: Are all of those kids enrolled in Oklahoma’s prekindergarten program benefiting academically?

 

Since Oklahoma started its universal preschool program in 1998, children have actually experienced declines in their fourth grade reading scores. In fact, Oklahoma was the only state to see a significant score decrease in fourth grade reading since 1992. Last year, Oklahoma spent more than $118 million dollars on preschool, yet children in that state are still below the national average in reading.

 

Since the introduction of universal preschool in Oklahoma, the gap between low-performing students and their peers has not been reduced. The students the program was intended to help have not gained ground.

The actual article from Tulsa, Oklahoma that Heritage cited was headlined: A-plus. That would be A-plus in spending NOT results!

The latest annual survey by the National Institute for Early Education Research shows Oklahoma leading the nation in prekindergarten enrollment.

The State of Preschool 2008 showed Oklahoma in first place with 71 percent of its 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool education. This is not the first time the state has ranked first in this survey.

The survey also found that Oklahoma's preschool program is a high-quality one, meeting nine out of 10 benchmark standards. Oklahoma also was praised for increasing pre-K funding, from $3,635 per-child to $3,966 in 2008. 

The Tulsa paper only extolled the virtue of 4-K enrollment, not achievement. Considering all school districts are probably in the same boat Elmbrook is--needing to watch their spending--does Oklahoma spending $118 million a year on pre-school make sense? (Maybe I should say does it make cents?)

We have actual results to look at; some schools have had 4K for a long time. From Does 4K deserve tax dollars?

As I mentioned last year, I attended 4 year old kindergarten in the Shorewood school system. If 4K is so beneficial, shouldn’t Shorewood’s ACT scores be consistently higher than our [Elmbrook] school district’s that didn’t offer 4K? The data shows that this year was the first in the past few years that Shorewood edged out Elmbrook’s ACT scores by 1.23 points.  Of the top 10 schools in Wisconsin (Elmbrook consistently is in the top 10), at least 7 had no 4K program at the time those students tested started school. Incidentally, over 250 school districts have 4K so there should have been a better showing in the top 10 if it is so helpful. 

If 4K is so beneficial, shouldn't the students graduating from these institutions be consistently waaaaay ahead of those who don't have 4K?

Links: 

Last week, the article K4 back on the table in Elmbrook on Brookfieldnow caused quite a stir. The way it was written, it led people to believe that 2 board members who previously voted against 4K were now thinking about it. The article was heavy on the positive effects of 4K on the school budget without much detail regarding the negatives to the taxpayer.

Newspaper reporters frequently misquote or misreport--not necessarily maliciously but because they just don't get the nuance of the situation. The remedy is a correction. Unfortunately, most people who read the original article never see the correction. When an election is just 2 weeks away, a misleading article can be damaging.

When I read the article, I thought the statement regarding Meg Wartman and Glen Allgaier's position did not ring true. So I emailed them and the remaining school board candidates so they could clarify their positions. Meg and Glen's explanations regarding the meeting and revisiting 4K will be at the bottom of this posting.

Here are the candidates' responses to my 2 questions, just as they were sent to me. (I did break up some of the longer responses for easier web reading.): Are you for 4K? Would you vote for 4K as a way to increase Elmbrook's budget revenue knowing it costs the Elmbrook taxpayer more?

I will start with the At Large board position. 

Meg Wartman:

This first response was from my Feb 15th question to her regarding a private pay parent funded 4K program:

"As far as 4K, I would not support any 4K program that was funded using taxpayer dollars.  My expectation would be that the parent would pay the entire tuition amount.

Here is her most recent response to state her position since the article:

 "I have not changed from my past position of the program. I do not believe we should to ask taxpayers to fund a four year old kindergarten program.  If by future consideration the District is willing to look at some sort of option that would allow for a private pay 4K program that could be offered at district buildings then I would be willing to revisit the issue.  However, that discussion would need to occur within a context of our long range financial plan and future facility use.

Charles Wickens:

" Regarding 4K - My position is crystal clear with this. I do not support any tax base increase for 4K.  Also, we do need effective leaderhip to address the issue. In the face of declining student enrollment and a 10M budget deficit - we as a distict are turning way about 350 family's per year ( assuming about 350 enrollments at 5k/year) with no options. I propose that we provide an option to those families that need 4K services by providing leaderhship/curriculum, perhaps space to a private provider - resulting in a pass-through cost, allows the district to capture the family and student with content that will prepare the student for an Elmbrook 5K slot and lastly but not leastly - address this growing need for young working families.

I did ask for a little clarification. "Could you define 'I do not support any tax base increase for 4K'? There is state aid, fed. aid, and Elmbrook property taxes. The district has looked longingly at the additional 4K state aid dollars disregarding the increase to the community member's property tax bills."

"Regarding my approach vs yours ...would love the discussion - possibly come up with a hybrid plan that would actually meet our communities needs. We can't continually stick our heads in the sand and pretent that this will go away.  I want to bring clarity to this issue which has been lacking in past discussions.

"To be clear - our programs need to compete at the 5K - 12th grade level.  I do not support an increase to the community member property tax bill to support a 4K program.

 "The state is totally confused with the 4k issue -- i.e. funding and aid etc.  Again - lack of clarity. The state needs a best practice to feed from...Elmbrook could provide this.

"Our state leaderhsip has failed young working families too long -- time for Elmbrook to provide the leadership and roadmap to the state by addressing this issue without imposing a tax burden to the community.

In another email from Wickens yesterday:

"1) I believe that Elmbrook should compete at the 5k-12th grade level

"2) I do not support a property tax based 4k program - i.e. no tax burden

"3) I do believe we need to address the issue.  We have approximately 350 children come into our 5K programs annually.   Today, we don't have any option for those families (as many as 350) for 4K. I believe that this is unacceptable. I support an option that will allow parents to enroll in a private 4k program that has Elmbrook approved curriculum, leadership in terms of delivery and performance criteria.  Those parents would engage in these Elmbrook 4K approved programs and pay for them as a direct payment.  This would give our parents an option and prepare their child nicely for an Elmbrook 5K program.  Win/Win.

The Area 4 position.

Jean Lambert:

"I am happy to provide you with my position on 4K.

 

"Since the Elmbrook School District 4K pilot program a number of years ago, I have been opposed to taxpayer-funded preschool. I firmly believe that the School Board and Administration are stewards of the finite pool of district resources. We must assure that these resources are dedicated to optimal student learning. Research shows the educational benefits of 4K accrue to disadvantaged children - very few live within our district; the main advantage cited for 4K in the suburbs is that of socialization. Many 4 year olds in the district - including my own -  have been socialized in private 4K programs, at the family's expense.

 

"With the many revenue challenges that face us in the coming years, I believe it is unconscionable to impose yet another tax increase on the citizens of this community for programming that will deliver socialization benefits that should rightfully be funded by the families of preschool children. Some argue that children who begin 4K in a private/parochial setting never return to the public school setting. However, I'm told that the Elmbrook School District ratio of public/private enrollment has maintained at a steady rate of approximately 70/30%, in spite of the lack of availability of publicly funded 4K.

 

"Some advocate 4K as a solution to declining enrollment: add ~300 more students via 4K, fill up the empty classrooms, and add significant revenue to the budget. They're forgetting that those revenues are a direct result of increased taxation at both the state and local level. Whether it's state or local taxation, taxpayers are funding preschool.

 

"I do wholeheartedly support partnerships between the district and local private preschool programs, with Elmbrook School District collaborating on the curriculum to ensure a smooth transition to the 5K program offered by the District. Tuition for this 4K option would be privately funded by families participating in the program. 

Donald Moore:

"I haven't made up my mind regarding 4K and I am still open to arguments. Not having been involved in the initial board decisions much of the information I've received in the past two months has been piecemeal and not authoritative. I understand the arguments for both sides of the issue.  When 4K comes up again I will closely examine both sides and make my decision on what I think is best for our young students and the community."

Now for the clarification on what occured at the school board meeting. First from Meg Wartman:

"I appreciate your following up and verifying the statement.  I made no comment on revisiting 4K other than to state that it was too late in the year to look at offering 4K in 2009 - 2010 (something Mr. Ziegler had hoped the district would take a look at) and facilitate the discussion.  If the BrookfieldNow reporter felt there was an openness to a 4K discussion I believe it was to allow simply for that, a discussion.  I think it is important to explain that board protocol would allow any board member to ask that an item be on a future agenda for discussion.

"I did not interpret Glen's comments to be pro 4K.  I believe he directly stated that he held the same reservations about the program that he had held when the board voted in 2007.  Overall there was a certain politeness in listening to a fellow board member's concern and willingness to allow the board member his 'day in court'.

"Mr. Ziegler was certainly more direct in his comments and was clearly asking the board to consider reinstating 4K as soon as possible.

Her comments did ring true to what I have heard each board member express in the past. She sent this additional email after she watched the cable broadcast:

"I still cannot understand how the BrookfieldNow reporter interpreted any of my comments to be pro-4K or even showing any interest in pursuing the program further.  The board members that spoke in response to Mr. Ziegler's request clearly indicated that they did not feel their positions had changed.  However, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Ziegler made a formal request that 4K be a topic of discussion at a future board meeting and such requests have always been honored by the board.

And lastly, board member Glen Allgaier's stance on 4K (He is not running for the board at this time, but was misrepresented in the article):

"I do not support 4K because (a)  It offers no clear educational benefits and (b)  the cost would require increased property taxes.  There are some members of the Board who still would like to see 4K and who felt that, given our financial needs, we should consider all options.  I would anticipate such a discussion will only increase public awareness regarding the 4K issues and why the Board voted to not continue it.

Brookfieldnow did post an update on that K4 article:

Board member Meg Wartman said the program could not be implemented so quickly. In a later statement, she said she believes the board is still opposed to K4, though some members may be willing to discuss the issue.

"I am not supportive of revisiting 4K at this time," she said.

So there you have it--the ins and outs of who is for 4K and who is not. I hope this shed some light on this very important issue. Remember, while 4K would increase the dollar amount the school district had at their disposal, it does it at taxpayer expense! It also will eventually lead to more building referendums to increase the size of the elementary schools. I am glad some of the candidates understand the ramifications of 4K's impact on Elmbrook resident's property tax bills!

The election is Tuesday, April 7th. We not only vote for 2 candidates for school board, but also for Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction and Supreme Court Justice. Elm Grove residents vote for 3 Village Trustees.

UPDATE: Rose Fernandez will be interviewed on WVCY TV 30 tonight at 7:30pm.

Links: 

Lisa Sink reported that 4 year old kindergarten lacks support in Elmbrook. Am I breathing a little easier? 

Well, yes and no: (Emphasis mine)

Despite a renewed push by some parents to have Elmbrook schools offer 4-year-old kindergarten, it is unlikely to be implemented soon because three School Board members have asked to shelve the hot topic for the next two years.

...

The idea to add 4-K in the next one to two years was vetoed by board members Meg Wartman, Glen Allgaier and Tom Gehl.

There is no doubt in my mind that the subject will come up again. Elmbrook MUST cut $1+ million dollars from their budget each year. 4K is a tempting budget enhancer because it adds more students to the enrollment numbers, thus adding more state aid. (It also adds more expense!)

Please remember that improving Elmbrook's budget is NOT the same as improving the taxpayer's budget, because nearly all money coming into the school district comes one way or another from you, the taxpayers--local property tax, state aid, federal aid.

I believe our superintendent would like to bring back 4K but will not at this time because the public is watching. It seems he is having a hard time leaving those 4K state aid dollars on the table. It is only the resolve of the board members keeping this measure at bay. 

Superintendent Matt Gibson said 4-K was not dead and that the budget priorities were still being debated, but he said there was not strong board support for the program.

Pro 4K parents will swear up and down that their requests are not about free daycare but that they truly believe it is for the benefit of their child. Since there are private schools that offer pre-school--but at the parent's expense--if parents sincerely believe their child needs this, they can avail themselves of these opportunities.

Liberal politicians, such as Senator Obama, push for earlier and earlier public education--despite its lack of long term academic benefit. The topic will not go away. But for right now, thank you again, Tom Gehl, Meg Wartman, and Glen Allgaier for voicing your opposition to a program that doesn't perform.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Last night I stopped in at the Elmbrook School Board meeting to say, thank you, to the board. I had heard there might be a group of impassioned pro-4K parents making their pleas during the public forum time and thought a different point of view might be in order.

I thanked them for acting in a fiscally responsible manner last fall when they discontinued 4K. True, parents and children loved 4K, but popularity alone isn't a valid reason for implementation. I also encouraged them to evaluate all programs and purchases in that same way because Elmbrook cannot afford to spend its precious taxpayer dollars on programs that don't show long term academic benefit.

Turns out, the group consisted of 2 pro 4K speakers. I came in half way through one woman's talk. She was disputing the validity of the Goldwater Institutes's preschool studies. She said something about that institute being against public education and so their results were skewed. (Watch the cable broadcast for her exact words.) 

There are of course many studies on the benefits of preschool. The ones I have seen all conclude the same: Students who attend preschool show short term benefit but no long lasting academic benefit.

Home School Legal Defense group still sends me email updates. This latest one cites some unpleasant results of preschool that are often ignored by the pro preschool groups. (Emphasis mine)

While proponents of institutionalized early education support their claim that pre-K is necessary and effective by pointing to childhood education research, the results of such studies are, at best, mixed. Many pre-K advocates cite the massive studies on child care and youth development sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to bolster support for institutionalized early education programs. While many NICHD studies do, in fact, report some positive effects of pre-K, they simultaneously indicate several negative outcomes of early education programs. For example, in 2007 the NICHD reported in a single study that early childcare increased children's vocabulary, but that children who spent more time in institutionalized pre-K were more likely than their non pre-schooled counterparts to exhibit problematic behaviors, such as bullying, aggression, and acting out, through the sixth grade.¹ Proponents of government-funded early education often tout the first part of this study, which reflects favorably on pre-K, while ironically neglecting to mention the latter portion of the report. Such cherry picking is academically dishonest and hardly sound methodology for designing and implementing public education policy. ( “Early Child Care Linked to Increases in Vocabulary, Some Problem Behaviors in Fifth and Sixth Grades.” National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development (NICHD). NIH News. 26 March 2007.)

As I stated in an earlier post, you could also look at schools that have had 4K for a long time. Their ACT scores for example are not leaps and bounds higher than non pre school districts.

If 4K is so beneficial, shouldn’t Shorewood’s ACT scores be consistently higher than our school district’s that didn’t offer 4K? The data shows that this year was the first in the past few years that Shorewood edged out Elmbrook’s ACT scores by 1.23 points.  Of the top 10 schools in Wisconsin (Elmbrook consistently is in the top 10), at least 7 had no 4K program at the time those students tested started school. Incidentally, over 250 school districts have 4K so there should have been a better showing in the top 10 if it is so helpful.

The speaker after my turn spoke on a different subject. She was questioning the appropriateness of Elmbrook allowing R rated and PG13 rated movies being shown to underage students. Platoon and Saving Private Ryan were named. Those I know have very foul language in them. I'm in agreement with her!

I then went to the Creation Science meeting to hear Kitty Foth-Regner's talk on her journey from atheism to Christianity, so I don't know what else transpired at the school board meeting. Kitty's talk was pretty amazing. Hopefully I will get to blogging about if. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I almost missed this, but thanks to a reader, here it is: A group of pro 4K residents will be making an appeal to the school board this Tuesday during the Citizen's Forum time--first on the agenda.

My reader had this to say about the pro 4K group:

...Seems as though they believe that the old 'wear em down one request at a time' philosophy will work on the board as well as it works on the taxpayers.

...I was reminded of Tom Gehl's comment about where the taxpayers went the last time the proposal came up, forcing him to face an [emotionally charged crowd]** alone.

My reader then suggested a counter "No Way 4K" cheering section at the meeting, to give the board a little moral support.

Last fall, I was there when they made that difficult decision in discontinuing Elmbrook's 4K program. They made that tough choice because there was no proof that 4K made a long term academic improvement.

True, 4K will add money to the school district's budget, but it will also add more tax burden to Elmbrook taxpayers. We cannot afford to add programs that do not deliver real results. 4K shows no long lasting academic improvement, therefore it is a luxury. Right now is the time to tighten our belt, not indulge in self serving programs.

We will already see higher property tax bills because that magical 2% growth (projected by the experts) the referendum tax calculations were based on has not materialized.

We did not even hit 1% growth this year, and that was a figure from June, when our market was stronger. From Fairly Conservative, Brookfield assessed growth less than 1%: (My emphasis)

The Board of Review met this morning and assessed property values in the City of Brookfield only grew 0.987% to $6,300,693,600.

This low number has enormous implications for taxpayers who will be taxed above that growth according to state caps. Low growth also affects the estimates used for the Elmbrook referendum as well as the failing TIF district in our community.

Come to the School Board meeting on Tuesday to show your support for the board's decision to discontinue 4K. (Maybe I could make the Citizen Forum and still catch most of the Creation Science speaker?) If you plan on speaking, make your comments short (2 minutes) and please be polite.

Superintendent Matt Gibson and some of the board are looking at ways to increase their budget through "revenue enhancers." 4K would do that, but at an added expense to the taxpayer. Let's not even let them think about flirting with 4K** again! 

*I could not verify Tom Gehl's original words. This conveys the same meaning. Tom was one among 4 who voted the measure down: Meg Wartman, Patrick Murphy, and Glen Allgaier.

**I don't want to make more of this flirtation than it was: just a mention. But often "mentions" are made to test the waters of acceptance or opposition.

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

My posting on Dr. Gibson flirts with 4K again to cure Elmbrook budget woes sparked a bit of a controversy regarding Elmbrook's 5K enrollment requirements in the comment section.

MikeyD stated a startling bit of information in his/her comment, inferring that 4K was necessary: (My emphasis throughout. You can read all of the comments by clicking the above link.)

"...But I was very surprised that when entering 5K, children in Elmbrook are Expected to be able to read and write!  I was pretty astonished. Did any of you know that a 5K kindergartener is expected to be reading and writing? When I found this out, and in light of the very successful pilot program, I was all for 4K. Even if it only helps in the short term. Elmbrook has very high standards, a good thing, but if they expect this much from a 4.5 year old, they should have the means to make sure all students are at this level at the start of 5K, which would make 4K more than just a luxury and certainly not daycare.  They will be learning to read and write, doing math, it isn't all crackers and naps.

Then Kathryn relayed her experience: (Again, her entire comment is under the original posting.)

"MikeyD, I wonder if there was a miscommunication when this was discussed.  I too was startled when my non-reader brought home a book to "read."  Turns out it was more about getting going than presumed ability.  Certainly some children do enter kindergarten already reading and writing; in that sense  it is "expected."  Many other children enter unable to read and write, and that too is "expected." 

Which is it? Are children expected to be able to read and write to enter 5K, or is it just that some can?

So, I contacted Elmbrook Schools.

From:>>> "Kyle Prast"  8/25/2008 8:53 PM >>>

Could you please tell me what requirements or expectations there are for
enrolling a child in 5K? I would be interested in both the academic skills
necessary and social/emotional maturity level that you expect.

Thank you,
Kyle Prast

This was my reply on Sept. 9, 2008: 

The only requirement for enrolling a child in 5 year old kindergarten is that the child is 5 on or before September 1 of the enrolling year.  There are no academic or social-emotional benchmarks that the student needs to meet for entrance in to kindergarten.  

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Mary

Last night I caught a bit of the July school board meeting on cable TV*. The board was discussing Elmbrook's coming budget woes and the difficult decisions our district needs to make to keep our schools operating within budget. (Unfortunately, I missed at least the first half of the meeting, but I will watch again and take better notes.)

Glen Allgaier had created a list of cost saving possibilities--none of them an easy choice. The list included the unpleasant prospects of closing a school and increasing class sizes. The idea was we needed to dramatically cut spending in order to meet our financial obligations. There seemed to be agreement that drastic measures were necessary.

Then Dr. Gibson chimed in that we could also look at increasing revenue producers to solve our money problems as well as implementing cost savings measures. That was when he mentioned 4K as well as looking at nonresident students. Gibson acknowledged that we had decided to forgo 4K but it seemed the state aid dollar potential was still tempting him.

Another "revenue producer" would be to go to the taxpayers with a referendum to raise the spending cap!

The idea of coming at taxpayers on the heels of our $62mil high school referendum would be very distasteful to me--especially considering our budget shortfalls are nothing new.  While I had suggested a referendum to raise the spending cap to increase the maintenance/capital improvement budget as a way to deal with the high school improvements and needs, that spending cap referendum was to be instead of not in addition to the high school referendum!

4K was mentioned not as an improvement to education but solely as a cure for budget woes--as in increasing the school budget, not decreasing the taxpayer's burden. Our board decided last fall to eliminate 4K because it was not shown to improve student performance in the long run. But here we are again mentioning 4K as a possibility.

Universal 4K is also a subject of the presidential election. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support the idea of nationwide 4K. The Democrat party believes in pre-K as it is sometimes called.

Today, the Wall Street Journal's Protect Our Kids From Preschool summed up much of what I wrote last fall when Elmbrook was deciding their 4K question. In a nutshell, there is no longterm evidence that 4K is beneficial in the long run:

Barack Obama says he believes in universal preschool and if he's elected president he'll pump "billions of dollars into early childhood education." Universal preschool is now second only to universal health care on the liberal policy wish list...

But is strapping a backpack on all 4-year-olds and sending them to preschool good for them? Not according to available evidence.
...
Mr. Obama asserted in the Las Vegas debate on Jan. 15 that every dollar spent on preschool will produce a 10-fold return by improving academic performance, which will supposedly lower juvenile delinquency and welfare use -- and raise wages and tax contributions. Such claims are wildly exaggerated at best.

In the last half-century, U.S. preschool attendance has gone up to nearly 70% from 16%. But fourth-grade reading, science, and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) -- the nation's report card -- have remained virtually stagnant since the early 1970s.

The piece concludes with:

If Mr. Obama is serious about helping children, he should begin by fixing what is clearly broken: the K-12 system. The best way of doing that is by building on programs with a proven record of success. Many of these involve giving parents control over their own education dollars so that they have options other than dysfunctional public schools. The Obamas send their daughters to a private school whose annual fee in middle school runs around $20,000. Other parents deserve such choices too -- not promises of subsidized preschool that they may not want and that may be bad for their kids.

Jay Weber talked about 4K in his 8am hour today too. A man whose wife taught in Elmbrook's kindergarten program called in. He said his wife presented 25 reasons 4K was beneficial at the board meeting, but the board voted to discontinue. The caller then added, he wouldn't send his children for 4K! (He must have had his own 26 reasons it wasn't beneficial?)

Finland was again mentioned as a standard. Finland doesn't start school until age 7. Their students do better than the rest of the world.

Taxpayers are asked for more and more money each year, whether at the local or national level. Can we at least narrow down the wish list to programs that actually work?

Past post: Does 4K deserve tax dollars? 

If you wish to read other past postings on this subject, just click the tag 4K and they will come up. 

*Our venture in to cable TV was short lived. We signed on with TimeWarner for a special deal that wasn't delivered as promised. Now to get the package that was presented would cost $30 more per month. Too much for television! Monday the cable TV will be shut off. 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

I know many parents of 4 year olds and preschoolers are upset that the Elmbrook School District failed to implement a permanent 4K program. I do believe the parents who communicated with the board were sincere in their enthusiasm for the program.

But there was a common thread to their comments that saddened me: many acted as if 4K was the only way their child could learn, achieve, mature, and flourish at this young age.

From Rose Moylan’s quote in the paper, "It [4K] stimulates and challenges (my son) in ways that I simply cannot do at home," to Katie, who spoke at the board meeting, They [4K teachers] can pull out an energy and excitement of learning [that I cannot], their attitude is that public school 4K is the only way this can be accomplished.

What a sad commentary on parenting today.

Since when have parents become so hesitant to nurture their own children? So insecure that they think they are not up to the task of teaching 4K skills at home?

I suppose this reluctance or feeling of inadequacy shouldn’t have surprised me. I heard it all the time in people’s voices when they found out I homeschooled my son K–12. Whether it was during the elementary years or high school years or even now that my son is in technical college, people’s reactions were and are always the same: I could never do that!

Some people I knew better than to try to persuade otherwise—their minds were made up. Others, I would encourage with, “Yes, you can--if you really want to.”

Parents are a child’s primary teacher. We teach them how to eat, talk, walk, use the bathroom, etc. But somehow, when it comes to schooling, some very intelligent parents suddenly feel ill-equipped.

HSLDA, Home School Legal Defense Association (naturally, a pro parents can be teachers stance) compiled some very interesting data that illustrates that anyone can teach their own children from a 1997 study.

Pay particular attention to the comparison between the mother’s educational levels and the basic battery test scores on page 2. The mother’s who did not even finish high school scored higher (83) than those who did graduate (80) and just one point away from the mother’s who had some higher education after High School! (84)

If you compare these test score averages to the public school sector on page 1, you see that even the drop out mom’s kids scored 33 points higher than the average public school students.

Another interesting graph shows the test score differences between homeschool parents who had teacher certification and those that did not. Surprisingly, the average scores were equal at the 4th grade level and 1 point higher in 8th grade if the parent had no educational certification!

Now this posting is not about the virtues of homeschooling vs. public education. There are many factors which contribute to those higher test scores of homeschooled students. Mainly that the child receives so much more one on one time and that the parent knows if the child is “getting it” or not. (When a child has to answer each and every question asked by the teacher, there is no faking it!)

Also, just by virtue of a child being at home and being part of the running of a household, there is much more life skills education taking place. Plus, homeschool families usually eat their meals together.*

Homeschooling parents tend to never turn off the teaching either. Everything is a teaching moment. (Many parents do this too, not just homeschoolers.)

I use this homeschool comparison information only to illustrate that if an uneducated parent can teach and guide their child to outperform the public school student, even in upper grades, certainly any parent can teach their child 4 year old kindergarten skills.

If a parent feels compelled to do a 4K program at home, there are a host of curriculum ideas, materials, and plans available. Rainbow Resource is one online source of all manner of materials. But please, don’t overload your children.

Personally, I do not think this is at all necessary. Just being with your child and involving them in your life: grocery shopping (colors, counting, sizes, etc.), meal preparation (measuring, counting, basic fractions, addition, subtraction), reading to your child (if they have a favorite book, point to the words as you read, when you come to a repetitive fun word, stop and let them say it—that is how my son learned to read), singing, art projects, nature study, pretend play (playing store is great—use real money!), going to the park or other special places, etc. Basically, you just take advantage of the teachable moments throughout the day--not in a tiresome, heavy handed way--make it fun.

PAMELAMUNCH left a comment regarding the importance of family time on my blog. Here is an excerpt:

I feel so many people want a 4k so they have some place to put their child for free (no tuition) so they can work. Why not promote less material gain and more importance on the value of our children at home with mom and family meals etc. I agree w/ LISAMCL and TESTOSTERONE that time with our families is our greatest gain.

Instead of your child telling you how they learned their left from their right hand, you teach it to them! (By the way, you can remind them that if they hold up their index finger, like they are pointing to the sky, and their thumb, out at a right angle, it forms the letter L if it is their left hand. Wish I would have known that when I was a kid!)

You are qualified to teach your own child. Don’t be afraid of it, be a part of it.

*Coming up next: Family Time and Family Meals—more important than we think

If any of you are thinking of homeschooling your children and would like some information, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Recently at a neighborhood party, a few of the moms were talking about school and the high cost of private school tuition. Two of them had their children enrolled in parochial elementary and high schools.

I believe it is the right of every parent to choose the type of school their child attends.Sending children to private school or homeschooling them is a financial sacrifice many parents are willing to make, but as our property taxes increase it is a choice that is becoming increasingly difficult. (The major portion of your bill is the school tax).

That discussion reminded me of something I read in January's 2007 Elmbrook Link regarding the budget.

There has never been a greater need than now to recruit all possible resident-student enrollments into our schools, according to assistant superintendent for finance and operations, Bob Borch. The amount of revenue that the State of Wisconsin allows school districts to receive each year is based on enrollment figures under what are called, "state revenue caps." Either the School District of Elmbrook increases its resident enrollment as one way to produce more revenue or it must continue to make dramatic spending cuts to keep the annual budget in balance.  (Emphasis added)

When that publication came out, some people made the comment that because property taxes (school taxes) were getting so high, soon residents would have no choice but to send their kids to public school--they couldn't could afford tuition on top of the property taxes. Elmbrook was taxing us out of our ability to choose! This holds true for homeschoolers too. (Most homeschool moms cannot work outside the home and teach their children at the same time, so they are single income families.) 

The absurdity of Elmbrook's rational in their wish to recruit every possible student is unbelievable. In very rounded numbers, the total cost per student is $13,000/year. The district receives about $3,000/student from the coveted state reimbursement mentioned in the Link. The remaining $10,000 per student comes from us, the ELMBROOK School District taxpayers!

But cost aside, is this what Public Schools were designed to be? Something that parents had to enlist their children in with out a choice? A drift net that would snag and snare every living creature in its path? Or was the concept of the public school set up to be a safety net, designed to catch those who fell through the cracks, to keep them from injury.

If we look at the history of public education in the United States, we see that the Puritans were the first to implement free public education in the colonies. They wanted their children to be literate so they could read the Bible. It is ironic that the very reason for free public education is evolving into a mandate to attend a school where God cannot be mentioned nor a Bible read.

The first free public school in the United States was not available until the mid 1800s. (Section, The Beginning of the Public Education System)

The common-school reformers argued for the case on the belief that common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty.

These reformers thought education should not just be for the wealthy, who could afford tuition to a private school or a tutor, but be available to all American children. It was not until 1918 that there even was a Federal law on the books requiring compulsory elementary school attendance in all states. These laws came about to ensure that all children, regardless of financial ability to pay, could reap the benefits of a basic education.   

Many families today are already being priced out of their ability to choose the type of education their child receives by the very system of public education (and resulting high property taxes) that was created to ensure all children be educated.  If this pattern of ever increasing school property taxes continues, then ironically, the only families that will still be able to choose will again be those who are very wealthy, or in select districts, the poor who qualify for school choice vouchers.

Elmbrook must come to terms that they must find other ways to work within their budget than just continually trying to increase their student enrollments. Recruiting all the resident students who currently attend private schools, non-resident students, and now the possible 4K students, just to receive the paltry (in comparison to the total cost) state aid monies to boost their budget is not the answer.

Enrollments will continue to drop. That is just the reality of the aging baby boom. Adding 4K may ease Elmbrook's budget woes for now (not the Embrook taxpayers' burden), but how will that help when enrollments drop further?

Elmbrook will suggest adding all day 4K, to double the state aid money. Then they will suggest adding 3K. The real answer lies in cutting the fat out of the budget and improving efficiency, and only asking the public to fund our own students.

Elmbrook needs to be reminded that they only receive about 25% of actual cost for each Elmbrook student from the state (that includes Elmbrook taxes too) and that it is the Elmbrook taxpayer that must make up the remaining 75%.

Elmbrook's drift net mentality costs the taxpayer about $10,000 per student. At that price, how does snagging a larger catch help us?