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?