School Districts Try to Save Pre-K

This is where you are confused. There are many kids in the school who receive government assistance that pays for the entire tuition, which costs the state far less than providing the same class in a public school.

So, you are saying there are many pre-K students attending private school thanks to government assistance -- in the form of what -- a voucher? And, that voucher is now going to your wife's school? Or, is there some other assistance that is paid directly to your wife's school? I just can't think of what kind of assistance it might be.

The new law now only provides the same amount of money per student regardless of them being in a private or public school.

Yes, this is what I would expect: the same amount being provided by the state.

Since the public schools cannot afford to provide the classes at that rate, they are being forced to cease the pre-K classes or make up the loss in revenue from other sources.

Well, so far, it sounds like your wife's pre-K is about to increase its business.

Orange County is spending an extra two million dollars of surplus money next year to make up this difference, but where will the extra money be the next year?

I don't know. If Bill McBride is elected governor, he said he will raise taxes so there is more money for public school pre-K. However, I know Gov. Bush has increased funding for pre-K, and he did it without raising taxes.

If the public system can succeed in keeping all these kids in their system, then it does impact the pool of students that are available for the private sector.

Well, public schools can only offer pre-K, as attending it is not required by law. Also, the same argument you make above goes to the heart of the voucher issue: IF the public schools can succeed in keeping all these kids in their system, then it does impact the pool of students that are available for the private sector.

But, if the public schools can not keep those kids because parents perceive your wife's school is better, then, more students enter the free market system for your wife's school. And, one both sides of this issue, whether public preK verses private preK, or, public k-12 verses private k-12, is the point you make below, cited by both sides:

It's a power and control issue.

Yes, it is. Because (a) a private school may not say it, but it must stay in business, and (b) a public school may not be perceived this way, but, it often does want to offer what the community it serves may need. (Remember, again -- pre-K is NOT required.)

But, in a free market, there are other factors in play. You gave reasons why you believe your wife's school does a better job. Your reasons may all be true, and can persuade more students to attend her pre-K school over a public school.

I went to private pre-K myself as a child. It was located next door to the public elementary school, which did not at that time offer pre-K. However, even if it had offered pre-K, I know the private pre-K has a lot more to offer in many areas, including: the smaller size of the school, which is very important to some parents, and extremely important to some small children, who find a large public school setting to be overwhelming.

I guess what I am trying to tell you is this: no matter where Orange COunty or any county gets the funding from, and, frankly, they can ask parents to donate money and supplies to keep a public school's pre-K running, that public school has just as much right as your wife to offer a pre-K program, IMO. Is it as good as your wife's? Maybe not. Can your wife still get students to come to her school? Absolutely, especially if what she offers is different in terms of size of educational settting, for one factor.

Competition will always be there, and surely your wife knows this.

I think her real gripe is an advertising problem, as she is having a much tougher time convincing parents that uncertified teachers in her school are better than certified public teachers. And, on this count, she may be right, but here is how a parent may consider it: "Let's see, the teachers in your wife's school probably earn minimum wage, if that, (so the parent is thinking), and the public school teachers earn a heck of a lotmore than that, so, no thanks, I think I will put my kid in a public school where the teachers are paid a lot more than at Burger King."

Now, I mean no offense at all to your wife's school, and for all I know she may be paying her staff more than a public school (though I doubt it, simply because no private school does that). And, I can tell you: LOTS of private pre-K's DO only pay MINIMUM hourly wage to people. Maybe not your wife's school. BUT MANY DO.

Consequently, there are factors to consider, from a prospective client/parent's perspective, and your wife and her school need to address those concerns in their pitch or advertising or whatever they do.

Because again: (1) public pre-K's are not going away anytime soon; (2) competition is a GOOD in education; and (3) your wife's school may have some big advantages over a public preK, and she has to sell those advantages.

Finally, one more time: I attended a very small, private pre-K, and I would recommend such to any parent today simply because the one I attended was far more appropriate for me, as a 4 year old, on many levels, than that huge public elementary school next door.

My post #21 did not attempt to respond to your post #19, which I will return to. :)

one both sides = on both sides

I meant: ...Competition is a GOOD thing in education;

Read this in the a.m. bump

Look at what is happening in Washington, DC. The Washington, DC, council wants MANDATORY preschool for all children aged three and over, some even as young as 2 1/2 if they reach a certain date. Of course the public schools want this. It means more money for them and jobs. It's also easiser to indoctrinate children at an earlier age.

I obviously cannot compete with the salaries and benefits that the school system offer. My teachers laugh at public school teachers who complain of low pay. We do offer better than minimum wage but each increase in the minimum wage just pushes up tuition cost to those who can afford it the least. (a whole other issue)

I have good dedicated teachers who like their jobs. Most of my ladies did not get to go to collage because a family came first or lack of funds or time, What bothers me most about the article is the audacity and unfounded so called facts that these people state as reasons for keeping the Pre-K classes running. I would love to have my students compared in readiness skills to the kids in public school Pre-K. My weakest students would blow them away. We have a well rounded center (blocks, art, home living, manipulatives), play filled day, with great curriculum that does not assume small children cannot spend a small part of their day learning very important building blocks to reading, phonics and letter recognition. Because my teachers do not have a four year degree they are not good teachers? I don' t think so.

The ideal thing would be for each of these Pre-K classes to be turned over to K-5 and take 5-6 children out of the other classes. Giving the school system what they say they need with a half penny sales tax increase. I know it is a small step and does not answer all the problems needed to be addressed. It would be a honest step in the right direction. Giving strength to their statements of using the money they have wisely before asking for more.

Some of my students come from the poorest section of Winter Park. The state pays directly to the school, all but as low as $6.00 a week of their tuition from 4C. Most of these moms who receive this help are able to enter the work place or go to classes because of this support. This includes all ages as young as babies. Why should the state pay the public school more per child than the private sector? I say let the private school take care of these precious little children. Even better if mom can afford to stay home and teach them.

I have plenty of students wanting to come to my school so I am not groaning over the loss of income. My complaint is: stop putting us down as a reason for ignoring what the state is saying. Money and resources should be spent on improving K-5 - 12 instead of trying to reach younger and younger students.

In child care the youngest students, babies and toddlers classes, bring in little or no net income because of small student ratio. The oldest classes bring more income, so struggling child care centers can be heavily impacted by a few K-4's moving in or out of a school.

TA's wife

Money and resources should be spent on improving K-5 - 12 instead of trying to reach younger and younger students.

TA's wife, you wrote a very thoughtful and honest reply, and I appreciate it. Thanks.

I think you gave MANY substantial and persuasive reasons for a parent to send their child to your school.

Yet, I have to tell you -- IMO, you will lose the argument every time if you base your case on the above sentence I copied in italics.

Public schools are moving more and more to pre-K for many reasons. Consequently, while you may believe in your heart that public schools should stop offering pre-K and focus on K-5, I can tell you, honestly, they are not. They are going to continue offering pre-K.

But -- let me emphasize this: what you offer to parents, as a religious school, with a dedicated staff, and successful students, may certainly be more than a public school pre-K can offer, as you know. And, I know too, because I have attended school in both settings in my career as a student, and taught in both settings in my career as a teacher. No one can ever make an accurate blanket statement about "all" public or "all" private schools. It simply doesn't hold up.

However, in your case, in your school, you have a strong case to make. I think you will always do well if you continue to make that case on your school's behalf, citing the many benefits of your school. Parents want to know this. Yet, to demand that public schools "stop" with offering pre-K is just not realistic. The direction is for more and more early childhood education. One reason for this is that: so many kids are still not ready for school. When students attend pre-K, in a good program, every subsequent teacher of that student has a better chance to succeed with that student, and, of course, there is a much greater rate of success for the student, as you know. Consequently, expect to see more pre-K in public schools, no matter what happens with funding, tax cuts or tax increases, or whatever.

Does that mean you should close your doors? I think not. I think you have as good or better of a pre-school education to offer.
And, IMO, more importantly, you have a different education to offer, if you are a small, religious pre-K. The public school pre-K program can not offer that -- and I know for a fact there are parents who do want what you offer. :)

(BTW, I still have to go back and re-read that other response posted by Truth Addict!)

Dianna, As a pre-K teacher, I thought you might have some comments to share on TA's thread here. :)

(I still have to go back and re-read that other response posted by Truth Addict!)

When you do, please ignore the many typos and errors; I was in a hurry when I wrote it, and reviewing it later I was appalled at how many mistakes I made. Sometimes my fingers just hit the wrong key, but I can't believe I wrote the child should stay at home with the child (should be "parent")!

LOL....TA, I do the same thing! :)

Diana, I think I misspelled your name in my post #29 to you. Sorry! :)

The direction is for more and more early childhood education. One reason for this is that: so many kids are still not ready for school.

Summer, you posted this response to my wife, but allow me to comment.

Your understanding seems to be that the public system is determined to keep pre-K classes and even expand them into the younger years, right? I also assume that you support this. I could be wrong, but that is the impression that I get.

The reason given is to prepare them for school, and that without it, they have trouble catching up when school starts. Let me ask you, isn't that what kindergarten is for, to prepare kids for school? Why isn't one year in kindergarten enough preparation?

I seem to recall that not too many decades ago, that virtually all kids' school experience started in kindergarten, and there was no problem with that. It is generally acknowledged that the quality of public education has declined significantly over the past 30 years or so, so why do we not look back and see what we were doing right back then instead of coming up with new "progressive" teaching methods? Why would I want to send my children at even earlier ages into a system that has been in decline for so long, with very little progress toward recovery?

Florida has made significant progress toward reversing this decline, and I appreciate all the attention that Jeb has put into this, and many improvements have been made, but there is much more that needs to be done, and the reforms already made will take time to implement and show results.

As you know, my children have at various times been homeschooled, in private religious schools, and in public schools. My opinion of the quality of education offered by these thee options is: Homeschooling is the best by far, private schools vary in quality, but overall provide a very good education, and last, the public system offers the least acceptable option.

I know that there are many hard-working, caring, and capable teachers (like you) in the public system, but there are also many who are not so capable, and they remain in classrooms because of the teachers unions and tenure.

My biggest problem with the public system, though, is the content of the curriculum, and the methods used to teach them. Progressive education has inexorably take root, and needs to be expelled. Look at the results: 40% of our fourth graders fail the reading portion of the FCAT, but they all know every endangered species on earth, how to put on a condom, how bad drugs, gangs, cigarettes, and fundamentalists are, and that tolerance is the greatest virtue.

Let's let kids be kids for a few years before we start the indoctrination sessions. The state has an interest in the kinds of citizens that come out of its educational system, and that is not the same interest as mine.

None of what I have written should be taken as an attack upon you or the many other dedicated teachers in the public system. The teachers are not the problem, for the most part, it is the system itself. Until it is fixed substantially, I cannot support sending children into it at increasingly earlier ages.

Great post!

Let me ask you, isn't that what kindergarten is for, to prepare kids for school? Why isn't one year in kindergarten enough preparation?

I think public school teachers would tell you that K has changed in terms of what is being taught now. What was K when you and I grew up is now pre-K -- and, what was 1st grade is really now K. BIG changes have been happening on that K level here in FL's public schools.

But, your question is a really great question, and actually, I meant to add something to my response.

Maybe no one else agrees with me, but, IMO, another reason the public schools here in FL will continue to try to add pre-K is because of: the increased focus on accountability brought on by FL Gov Bush.

If there was no such focus, I believe some public schools would back off pre-K, because pre-K is actually a major headache for them in many ways, in terms of finding more classroom space, adding more teaching staff, paying more salaries, etc.

But, because these public schools do NOT want to be publicly labeled as being on the bottom rung -- and, in this state, potentially losing an entire school full of students to the private sector via vouchers available under Gov Bush's A+ plan -- some school principals are going to try everything possible to increase student achievement.

This is especially true for the low performing schools.

And, one to way to impact and increase the level of student achievement is: early childhood education via pre-K.

So, while yes, I wrote that I believe the public schools, while often not always perceived as being mindful of the needs of community, actually do often care about the community, the additional truth is: they too want to stay in business, just as the private schools.

And, in this state, they are not staying in business any longer if their students fail the state's measures of student achievement, which not only include a test, but now also include: a measure of a student's year to year improvement.

Consequently, I have to add that I personally find Bill McBride's claims to be rather bogus, since he is saying, in essence, through his new school plan: HEY -- I'M FOR A WHOLE MORE MONEY FOR PRE-K! And, NO MORE ACCOUNTABILITY!

Well, in fact, as I see it, the opposite is what's happening: Some FL public schools are scrambling to add more pre-K precisely because there IS now accountability.

I could be wrong. Maybe no one in the State of FL agrees with me. But, if I was a principal of one of the lowest performing public schools in Winter Park, I can tell you honestly: I would not sit around hoping that all the parents in the neighborhood find out about your wife's wonderful pre-K private school. I already know, from my experience as a teacher in such a school -- not all parents will get their kids into pre-K.

So, if I want my school to have a better chance in these very public measures of accountability, then, I have to do more to improve the students' chances for success -- and, pre-K is one way to do that. Will I have enough money in my school's budget? Maybe not. Perhaps some local business will help fund that pre-K program at my school.

And, while to some people my goal may appear to be to put your wife's school out of business, or to "control" more kids, the bottom line for my public school is now this: Here in FL, WE, the public school, may be out of business if we can not show improvement and success as measured by a variety of factors required of public schools in this state, thanks to Gov Jeb Bush.

It is really a whole new ball game now, for all schools in this state, because many new and different factors are in play.

If a Dem is ever elected governor of this state, I believe the first factor to exit the current educational equation will be: accountability.

And, I think FL voters are never again going to go the way of 'no accountability.'

So, the push is on - as the public schools will now really push to prove they are successful -- and, more competition between public and private will continue for those students, on all levels, including pre-K.

BTW, did you know that as a result of the new low income voucher / scholarship program (Gov. Bush's 3rd voucher program) 11 (eleven) new private schools just opened in Orlando, FL? Someone posted an article on this awhile back.

All these new private schools may not be offering pre-K at all. Your wife should perhaps look into parntering with those new private schools in some way, because this is a whole new group of parents now seeking private school education.

I meant: These new private schools may not be offering pre-K at all. Your wife should perhaps look into partnering...

The teachers are not the problem, for the most part, it is the system itself. Until it is fixed substantially, I cannot support sending children into it at increasingly earlier ages.

And, those parents who agree with you -- and, there are such parents -- will certainly be sending their children to your wife's private pre-K! :)

I meant: Bill McBride... A WHOLE LOT MORE....

The official position of the NEA, repeated every summer in their resolutions, is that public education should begin at birth and include both child and parents.

You make many good points that I want to reply to, but don't have the time right away, so I will post again maybe later tonight. I may get my wife to post again too.

Thanks for keeping this thread alive with good arguments!