Why should my 5 year old have to go to school all day? It’s not, as the child development experts say, “developmentally appropriate.” The “Full Day Kindergarten Community Forum” last night down right depressing.
It was very clear to me last night that the Board has already made up its mind. The panel of experts the board supplied lauded all day K and only spoke of the positives. It was like Fox News- completely one sided while claiming to be fair and balanced.
One piece of very good news- all day K will not cost taxpayers anymore money. In fact, D97 predicts that they will actually make money off the program due to increase in state aid. That’s right, they will make a profit by keeping 5 year olds in school all day! It strikes as kind of slimy to profit off this, but they really need the money.
“The gift of time” was the key phrase of the evening. Half- day K is too rushed. Teachers don’t have enough time to teach the curriculum. So instead of adapting the curriculum , they will just extend the school day . The district fully admits that they purchased full day math and reading curriculums for their 1/2 day K programs. Now they are surprised that K is too rushed?? What did they think would happen when they tried to cram a full day curriculum in a half day program?
The full day program is really designed around the needs of children who are “at risk.” While I agree that D97 should give extra help to at risk children, what about kids who aren’t at risk? It like these kids are just along for the ride.
While a half day K option will be available, it’s not really a very good or realistic one. Most of the core learning will be in the AM and half time students will leave at lunch time. Specials, like Gym, Art and Spanish) and free time will be in the afternoon, so half time students will miss the best parts of the day. Can I subject my child to Home Links and those stupid little paper books, but make her skip all the fun stuff?
4 comments:
I dunno. This is well-written, but I'm not persuaded. My son and daughter are in Hatch, and the lack of full-day kindergarten really bugged me:
* The purpose of K is to transition kids into grade school, and that transition is incomplete if the kids have a jarring additional transition in 1st Grade.
* When my daughter was in K, my son was in 2, which drastically complicated child care, and ended up keeping the two of them seperate in the afternoons.
* While academics is less a K focus than socialization, I know I'm not alone in being disappointed by how much material Hatch K covered during the year.
I see both pragmatic and principled downsides to half-day K, and I'm not sure I see any downside to full day K. I think it's awesome that you're jealous defenders of kids unstructured play time, but I respond to that by noting that kindergarten is optional in Illinois. Meanwhile, as of 2005, 70%+ of families nationwide have two working parents, and given the choice between day care and kindergarten, my feeling is that the classroom is a clear win.
Thanks for writing this; I wouldn't have even known about the issue were it not for this blog. Keep it up!
Thank you very much for your comment! This is what I like to see, even if we don't agree. It feels like D97 has already decided and is having the "discussion" for show. I just wish there was real discussion in the community before the experts were brought to "convince" everyone how well the program will work.
These are all great points. I think there is no harm in ADK as a program. Unfortunately I think there are issues with rolling it out.
For starters, I wish there was a practical way to accommodate the families that want a 1/2 day option. Contrary to District 97, I don't see "come get your kids at noon" as a true 1/2 option.
Secondly, why are we pushing ahead at breakneck speed to roll this out piecemeal? Lets take our time, plan ahead and roll this out district wide.
Also, for those of us who have been around the block a few times, forgive us for being a bit skeptical about this not impacting class size, not impacting any other programs and that school capacity is "not going to be a problem."
It is hard to take them seriously when the District 97 administration starts the meeting making the point over and over again that no referendum will be needed to pay for this. WE get that. The financing supports doing this. But given the WJ article the week before outlining the massive deficit spending that is impending for District 97, shouldn't we be talking REALISTICALLY about when a referendum is coming rather than burying our heads in the sand. Yes, ADK won't be the program to bring it about but it is coming so lets stop pretending.
Lastly, can the district stop saying "at risk?" What is this anyway? These are kindergarten kids. We don't evaluate them coming in so by what criteria are we declaring them "at risk" and "at risk" for what? Low standardized test scores? If we are going to roll out a new program of ADK to "solve" the "at risk" students, why does Whittier test near the bottom within the district and it has had ADK for a decade? I am not pointing any fingers as Whittier, I am just wondering how a district plans "roll out" a great "new" program when it already has this program and it doesn't have very good data to support it.
Anyway, food for thought. I think that as usual, our great principals and teachers will find a way to make the district look great.
I agree that there should be a better option for people who desire 1/2 day day care. For my needs though I feel full day is a great option. My son is already involved in full day Montessori program and going back to 1/2 day would mean kindergarten would be less rigorous then preschool.
Also, I believe full day is for more then at risk children. Full day kindergarten should allow educators greater opportunities for broader/diversified curriculum and provide greater detail in their lessons. Lastly, more time should provide educators greater opportunity to interact with our children on a one-to-one basis.
Post a Comment