Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > April > 20 > Entry
Scenes from an American childhood: Fun free zones
(A kindergarten class in Waynesville in 2004)
It’s finally begun to feel like spring here in the Midwest. Earlier this week the kids and I left our jackets on the hooks as we packed into the car for the ride to school. The temperature was expected to approach 70 that sunny afternoon earlier this week, a welcome change from several days of unseasonable cold and rain.
As the kids piled out onto the curb near the schoolhouse door, I said to them, “Hey, maybe you’ll get to play outside today.”
Kate, in kindergarten, looked at me curiously. “But Dad, I don’t ever get to play at school,” she said, with deep disappointment.
And she is 100 percent right.
Kate’s school does not offer full-day kindergarten. Why? That’s a good question.
Ohio doesn’t expect more — that’s the first part of the answer. For every kindergarten student, the state sends school districts half the per pupil funding that it sends for kids in grades 1 to 12.
And even though our suburban school district is generally considered one of the best around, it is not one of the few that has made full-day kindergarten a priority by funding it through local tax dollars.
All this despite a strong consensus among educators that full-day kindergarten has a positive impact on kids.
But even in half-day kindergarten, kids used to have more fun. A kindergarten teacher with nearly 30 years experience lamented to me recently that there’s no time in the school day anymore just for play.
Kindergarten used to primarily be about getting kids ready for school — teaching them about the rules and regiments of the school day, helping them learn to get along with each other and imparting to them pre-reading and pre-math skills to prepare them for the serious work of learning to read, add and subtract in first grade.
Not any longer. Now in many school districts the goal is to have kindergarteners reading by the end of the school year. To accomplish that goal, recess and most other downtime has been reduced or eliminated.
And the kids notice. Kate, who is six, is well aware that her grade is the only one that never gets recess. She has never once set foot on the school’s playground during the eight months of school so far. If not for weekly visits to gym and music she’d never leave her kindergarten classroom at all. That’s three hours a day of hard work every day mostly spent learning to read. Then they line up to go home or to after care.
Now, Kate is doing quite well in reading. Remarkably well, really. About mid-year this eager learner would sit next to me on the couch and try to sound out words in the headlines of the newspaper I was reading. Today she can handle a simple children’s book without any help.
But I wonder if the trade off is worth it. Most of us adults probably didn’t begin to learn to read until first grade and generally we seem to be getting by just fine in the world. When I recall kindergarten, I think almost exclusively of the friends I had and the great variety of educational toys and games we could choose from at playtime. (But then again, I went to full-day kindergarten nearly 35 years ago in a New Jersey school district that made it a priority.)
The 30-year teacher said that’s the way she prefers it. But the pressure today to get the kids reading is great. By third grade, kids, teachers, schools and school districts are judged on their reading scores in Ohio. Those judgments are made partly in response to No Child Left Behind, the 2002 federal law the requires schools to show ever-increasing progress on state exams.
So that’s what this change in kindergarten is all about — getting 100 percent of Kate’s class to pass that test so the school district can brag about the reading prowess of its nine-year-olds and keep the state and the feds off its back. It’s not because any research necessarily suggest a no-play kindergarten program is more educationally sound.
It would work as well, perhaps better, to extend the kindergarten school day — a method that much research supports as a way to improve the educational success of young children. But our school leaders have ruled that option out as too expensive and our state implicitly discourages a longer kindergarten day by declining to fully fund kindergarten.
So Kate is left with a high intensity, heavy workload kindergarten experience. And I worry a bit if she’ll view school as a grind instead of an exciting and fun place to learn.
(Image credit: Cox News Service)
Permalink | Comments (22) | Categories: My Favorite Posts, School Funding, Testing, Young Children
Comments
By Happy Homeschooler
April 26, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this
Lou- I have heard the same about starting school later. A lot of homeschoolers firmly believe in this. My own son, (age 7)gifted in many ways, was a late reader. It worried me to death that he wasn’t where he was ‘supposed’ to be. Right before his 7th birthday he caught on (basically after I decided to take a break from the reading for a month or so, LOL)and now he reads at a 9th grade level. If you read anything by Dr. Ray Moore (I think that’s his name) he speaks a lot about the ‘better late than early’ movement.By lou
April 25, 2007 9:25 PM | Link to this
Scott, I am not sure that I agree with all day kindergarten for most children. The most extensive childhood school readiness research was done in Sweden many years ago. They found that 7 is the best age to start school, not 5. This was a 50 year study. 50% of 5 year olds are ready for school. But out of that 50%, less than 25% of the boys were ready. At age 6 75% were school ready, but only 50% of boys. At age 7 99% were ready, yes the 1% was boys. The later starting students caught up and eventually out preformed the early starting students. I can’t think of the research article but I have it somewhere because I used it as a reference in an article I wrote. I will try to get back on that. For the gifted students, you’re right Mary we do not always meet their needs, that’s were the parents have to step in and find opportuniies for their children. Seems you did that and your child is better for it. I do the same for my son. I give him more enrichment at home, like I am suppose too. Standardized testing is only making it worse for gifted students. The creativity cannot be measured that way.By lou
April 25, 2007 7:20 PM | Link to this
Chris, yes Einstien started his education in Germany and they removed him saying that he was mentally retarded.By sharon
April 24, 2007 7:51 PM | Link to this
Gwen, God is a part of religion and cannot be part of the public schools according to the Supreme Court. In all reality, I would not want religion in the schools because I want to be the one to control what religious education my child receives. If you allow God in, you have to let every other religion in also. Catholic schools do not require students to know the alphabet to enroll. Just as the public schools, they would like them to. Unless you went to a private school, the citizens, including the senior citizens paid for your education. Why shouldn’t you pay for the next generation? School do teach values and aresponsibility. We do say the pledge, at least in my school. If we go back to neighborhood schools completely, the courts would most likely return us to forced busing to integrate the schools. Why do you want the “better” teachers to leave? Don’t DPS children deserve the better teachers, too? I don’t know how kids will pay the sales tax with their own money if they don’t have an income. I have never know a kid to consider education a privilege. I didn’t. Did you?By Dave
April 24, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this
Chris, I believe Lou was talking about current German education standards. For whatever it’s worth, Einstein was a high-school drop-out who couldn’t handle the regementation or rote learning required in Germany. He eventually moved to Italy and then got a HS diploma in Switzerland and became a Swiss citizen to avoid military service in Germany.By Mary
April 24, 2007 7:22 AM | Link to this
Sharon, I think many of the students on the teams are already paying for extra coaching and camps just so they can make the school teams. Many seem to be on amateur club teams. The stereotypical poor student or everyday student using sports and other activities as a stepping stone to college and a better life does not ring true to me. Many or most of the students in suburban after school programs are higher income. The less wealthy kids are more likely to have jobs or do not participate because of additional expenses. I think there was an article recently in some education journal about this in particular as pertains to women and Title IX.By Chris
April 23, 2007 11:38 PM | Link to this
Lou - actually Einstein was educated in Germany. He moved to the US later in life. However your point that the US educates everyone is well taken. However we often fail at educating the best and brightest; luckily we still import genius from other countries.By Gwen
April 23, 2007 10:10 PM | Link to this
My husband and I are Home Owners and on a fixed income and we are wondering WHY is it always the responsibiltiy of us (A Home Owner) to pay for the Dayton City School System? Isn’t it the parents of the students going to Public Schools responsiblility to pay for their own children? It is in a Catholic School System, they even have higher standards like before a child goes to kindergarden he or she must know their ABC’s. Catholic Schools are higher advanced than the Dayton Public Schools. Is it because parents and children going to a Catholic school want to LEARN and children going to a Dayton Public School could care less? Put values, respect,discipline, responsibility for your actions, The Pledge, Phonics, even God because he’s not a religion back into our Dayton Public Schools. It seems like all the School Board cares about is percentages. What’s that if a student cannot read or write. How can they fill out an application or even a budget a check book? Will they ever work? Learn? Maybe that’s the problem, Budgeting the Dayton School Monies. Get rid of extra staff that’s sitting on their A— Get rid of Busing and let the children go to a school closest to were they live and WALK. Stop building New schools and fix up all the existing ones. Will all the new schools that have been built recently will also be demolished because of lack of maintenance, letting it go to H—L. Have more insentives (money) for the better teachers to transfer to other schools to teach. Have a 1% Sales Tax voted in or forced that will only go to help BUDGET the monies for the Dayton Schools. Taking the burden off of all Home Owners and given to everyone to participate in by paying for Dayton Public Schools. Maybe then the students will appreciate the privilage they have in attending a Public School because it doesn’t matter what they buy if THEY (students) pay for Sales Tax they will be participating in their own education. We are voting NO for the increase in our Property Taxes. Find another way. Start Budgeting as if you have a Credit limit of % of $’s. STOP the MADNESS! The Ohio Lottery profit going to all Ohio Public School if a JOKE. They spend more money on advertising and new scratch of tickets that should go to the schools. And whatever happened to the $400 MIL from the Tobacco company money? Wasn’t that suppose to go to the Public Schools? There is a rumor circulating around the Dayton area that since this election time on May 8th will be the lowest for turn out that Jim Chandler’s office is going to Registered Democratic Voters to have them fill out their absentee Ballots to Vote YES for the School Levy? Do these Registered Voters own a home or even know what they are voting for? HMMMM Is there Something fishy going on? Well, now that I’ve blown off steam, Have a Good Day and VOTE NO for higher Property TAXES. Hay, Dayton School Board, don’t spend money you don’t have, just like us. Can you say B-U-D-G-E-T!!!By sharon
April 23, 2007 7:12 PM | Link to this
Mary, I guess I sort of got an answer to my question. The reason I included legislators input is so that they could mandate sports and extra-curricular activities be removed and no schools would spend taxpayers money offering them. So what I think you are saying is that you believe parents who want their children to participate in any sport, band, orchestra, or ROTC, for example need to pay for it themselves in private after school lessons. Am I correct?By Ms. Cornelius
April 23, 2007 6:11 PM | Link to this
The purpose of full-day kindergarten is not just to provide children with a half-day of childcare or a chance to play at the taxpayers’ expense. It is to teach children how to get along with each other and to exercise their creativity and problem-solving skills in the company of other children— lessons which will stand them in very good stead for the rest of their academic careers. My children had all day kindergarten, but the last half was devoted to learning through play and social skills. Their school was very proficient at teaching early reading skills, too.By lou
April 23, 2007 5:40 PM | Link to this
How valid is your statement that US public schools are the worst in the world. Have you read the research? Have you compared the students that are being educated in other countries and the fact that the US educates everyone and counts everyone. You can do anything you want with statistics, you have to look at the whole picture. In other countries it is decided a a young age who will be educated and who will not. Einstien would not have been educated in Japan or Germany (2 countries I am familiar with). Thomas Edison, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton also would not have been educated. Why do you think that higher education in the US is rated as the best in the world? Because everyone has a chance to be educated from the start.By Terri
April 23, 2007 5:09 PM | Link to this
So ALL public schools are bad? Oakwood? Centerville? I don’t think so. When someone says “public schools” don’t they really mean urban or rural public schools? In other words - schools that serve the lower socio-economic populations? We need to fix school funding! And by the way -Steve - judging from your grammar, your school DID do a poor job. Blogging doesn’t require the King’s English, but please!By steve howell
April 23, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this
I think public schools have failed, I hear people say public school is free, its not. why dont we just drop public system and go private!(like college) you can help those who cant with vouchers, then we wont have constant votes for more money! this would destroy the teachers union, the real problem. just ask yourself why are our colleges considered the best in the world and our goverment (public) schools one of the worst? take action american!!!!By Mary
April 22, 2007 9:43 PM | Link to this
Sharon, I guess I am confused by the way you ask the question. Legislators do not have to be involved. They do not require sports now. They do have requirements regarding physical education which is bigger than sports. Legislators also do not require trips to the movies, certain brands of jeans, spring break trips to the beach, proms or iPods but some students buy them anyway. Where I live, students also have access to private gymnastics, dancing, music, horse backriding, community soccer and golf, swimming and other lessons at the Y. So I am confused why you think the legislators and schools are somehow responsible and the only source for recreational pursuits. Have schools and education and the legislature become mommy and daddy?By sharon
April 22, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
OK Mary, Let’s say for the sake of argument that the legislators agreed with your premise that the schools should not pay for extra curricular sports. What is your recommendation regarding outside sports activities for youth? Do you want to see them eliminated from society? (I’m not trying to be sarcastic.) Do we fund them through a different state or federal plan? What are your ideas regarding outside sports?By Mary
April 22, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this
I think if class sizes were smaller and students were treated more as individuals - like homeschoolers - there would be more time for exercise, recess and gym. I am sure some students are still sitting in classes bored to death and already know the material being taught. Some could probably spend the entire day at recess and not miss a thing that they don’t already know and easily pass the standardized tests. However, when schools spend so much money for after school activities, they cannot afford small class sizes. When schools continue to fall on their sword over educational philosophies that group students by ages and diversity goals rather than educational needs, student and teacher time is wasted and inefficient. Then there is no time to chill, or go out for recess. One of the reasons I enjoyed seeing my son involved in college classes in lieu of high school clases was he was not a captive prisoner to the rigid school day that stresses seat time and control over education and learning something new. He had a lot more discretionary time - not that I thought he always spent it the way I wanted him to, but he definitely had shorter school days.By Teacher and taxpayer
April 21, 2007 8:57 PM | Link to this
The recess argument goes beyond the kindergarten level. My third graders have only one gym period a week; my colleagues and I have regularly defended the necessity of recess. We work our students hard, from the moment they walk in the door in the morning to the last possible minute of the day. They have a 30 minute lunch break, but rarely are allowed outside due to supervision issues. Ironically, NCLB is advocating research based policies. The research overwhelmingly supports the benefits of a brief recess for all age levels! Younger children benefit from the physical activity while older children respond favorably with increased quality in their schoolwork when recess is offered as a reward. Unfortunately, we can’t put a test score on recess. Could you go through a work day without a break? We expect our young children to do so. It’s sad that so many people forget that we are dealing with small people, not adults, when policy is made.By Happy Homeschooler
April 21, 2007 6:22 PM | Link to this
This is a big reason why more and more parents are homeschooling. Recess, at all grade levels, has been cut back. Kids get almost no downtime because the schools feel so much pressure to have early readers and kids doing addition and subtraction in kindergarten. I’m just thankful that so many have the option to homeschool and allow their children to be children a little bit longer. It’s too bad that the schools can’t get as much accomplished in the same short time frame (leaving more time for play) as the majority of homeschoolers can. I hate to see kids burnt out at such young ages. (I have a few in my family that are so stressed by school that they have taken anti-deppressants, and they are only in elementary school).By Sunnymom
April 21, 2007 7:57 AM | Link to this
I think it is sad that there is such a push to place children in formal schooling situations at younger and younger ages. Many are not ready, mentally or physically, for intense deskwork & constant drilling. Children need the exercise and creativity that play provides as much as they need food and water. These kindergarden programs, IMO, are robbing children of their childhood.By sharon
April 20, 2007 8:06 PM | Link to this
Scott, that is the number one reason I quit teaching kindergarten years ago. This has been on the way for many years. What is even sadder is that just because a kindergarten is a full day does not mean the kids will get a recess. The kindergarten students in my school are all day and haven’t gone out in years. EVER. Even the older students aren’t allowed more than 15 minutes of their 1/2 hour lunch break. When I questioned what the students favorite incentive (for behavior or attendance) would be, their answer was extra recess. When I approached the administration and told them what the kids said, the answer was a very resounding NO! I honestly believe that the drastic changes in goals for kindergarten have, in part, lead to the behavior problems we have in the schools. I know there are other factors but we no longer spend any time teaching kids how to play games, how to play together, how to share (milk and cookies) and since their parents don’t often do it, they just don’t know how to relate in socially acceptable ways. As far as all-day kindergarten goes, I am very thankful that our district didn’t offer it as I would have had to find other arrangements for my son when he started school. The majority of 5 year old children simply are not ready for a full day of school. You were right on when you said most of us didn’t have all day kindergarten and we did fine. I didn’t even go to kindergarten and never had problems learning to read. Years ago I read about a study where children who started reading in third grade had caught up to those who started in first grade by the time both groups were 10 years old. I bet the study results would still hold true.By School Supporter
April 20, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this
The district is obliged to use resources efficiently and early reading is perhaps the best investment any district can make. While I can’t argue against full day kindergarten, maybe direct instruction would leave more time for recess during the half day. What does Kate think about the videos at https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=25541994&postID=7805562962688901312 “Movie Clips > Anatomy of Reading Mastery” “Why Teach to Mastery?” In “Why use Scripts” we see kids at recess; would Kate prefer more structure in reading instruction if that made time for recess?By Mary
April 20, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this
School districts need to quit blaming the state and just do it if they want full day kindergarten. They could probably afford it by cutting middle school and high school after school activities. These types of activities are mainly recreational services for small groups of older students and carry on into the weekends. These activities for older students are probably a major source of increased costs in per student spending over what is spent on elementary aged children. However, if the main purpose of full day kindergarten is to allow children to go out and play, is that justified? Are parents simply looking to education and the tax payer as a “nanny state” to provide child care and recreational services and pass their responsibilities on to the taxpayer? I did not think the schools were doing their primary academic job well enough for my children, but did not expect them to do anything else. School districts seem to be more fired up on providing non-academic services.