Bill Description: Senate Bill 1316 would increase spending by an estimated $46.6 million to allow for taxpayer funded full-day kindergarten programs at public schools.
Does the bill expand the existing government monopoly on education and shrink family and student choice or agency? (-) Conversely, does the bill expand the ability for families and students to choose the educational options that best meet their needs free of government intervention or coercion? (+)
Senate Bill 1316 would increase spending by an estimated $46.6 million for taxpayer funded full-day kindergarten programs in public schools across Idaho. Schools that currently do not offer full day-K could choose whether or not to expand their programs to provide all-day services. This is a direct expansion of the government monopoly over education.
Some school districts already offer full-day kindergarten programs. Many of those programs have secured funding from private sources. Using private funds to support full-day kindergarten programs is a reasonable way to test out the demand and results without imposing costs on taxpayers. For two years in a row, the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Family Foundation has given a $1.5 million grant to the education nonprofit BLUUM to fund an all-day kindergarten pilot program at 17 different charter schools. Another example is the Boise school district, where 20 out of 32 elementary schools offer full-day kindergarten by charging parents up to $250 per month in student tuition. This strategy maximizes parental choice and ensures such programs will not be maintained or continued over time unless parents see improvements in academic achievement.
Statewide publicly funded full-day kindergarten will spend millions of taxpayer dollars in a program whose benefits disappear by third grade. Once they are created, the state must figure out how to continue subsidizing them for subsequent years, and the cost to taxpayers could escalate. Parental choice will be restricted and the educational marketplace will be hampered by a growing government monopoly.
Does the bill allow schools to be more flexible, improve feedback mechanisms, and decentralize decisions to the family or individual level? (+) Conversely, does the bill add to the existing education bureaucracy? (-)
Senate Bill 1316 adds to the existing education bureaucracy by expanding kindergarten programs across the state. Senate Bill 1316 requires any full-day kindergarten program to “include a parent engagement component,” which must include optional training for parents and legal guardians that explains “how to support the student’s learning at home.” But parents are not merely subservient partners with the state. Subsidized full-day kindergarten programs will not benefit families; rather, more government involvement in education will only weaken them. Parents who choose not to send their children to full-day kindergarten, or who choose not to have children at all, will be forced to subsidize the burden for others. Increasing spending for full-day kindergarten therefore raises the cost of stay-at-home parenting and imposes a higher financial burden on those who choose not to have children.
Does the bill decrease barriers to entry for teachers and other education professionals or services, thus incentivizing entrepreneurship and increasing the supply of options for education services in the marketplace? (+) Conversely, does the bill create barriers to entry into the education marketplace? (-)
Senate Bill 1316 creates barriers to entry for private providers by expanding the government’s role in education with public programs that will crowd out private providers, reducing the options available to families.
This expansion of the education monopoly will hamper the marketplace and drive up prices for private alternatives parents may currently be using for their child’s education and care instead of public all day kindergarten. Currently, Idahoans have many choices for child care and other education programs to fill the second half of a kindergarten school day, such as the YMCA or Boys and Girls Clubs. Many two-parent working homes rely on extended family or friends for help with after-school care as well. Parents seeking other options will find their choices among alternative education options are limited and worse as the government assumes more control over the education sector.
Does the bill finance education based on the student rather than the institution? (+) Conversely, does the bill finance education based on an institution or system? (-)
Senate Bill 1316 would increase state education spending by an estimated $46.6 million. This money would be allocated to public school districts through changes in support unit calculations for full-day kindergarten students.
Senate Bill 1316 allows school districts to increase the amount of time students spend in the public school system. But it is a legitimate question to consider whether the content and quality of the current system, rather than insufficient seat time, is the reason some students fall behind. According to the Nation’s Report Card, only 37% of Idaho 4th graders tested proficient or better in reading, and only 43% tested proficient or better in math. If existing seat time is not producing high quality academic results, how could more hours in those same classrooms lead to increased academic achievement for struggling students?
Children struggle academically because schools provide a poor educational foundation that is not suited to their needs, not because they need more seat time in school.
Before spending tax dollars on extending school hours, public officials must improve the existing academic rigor of our schools and allocate the $10,838 of Idaho’s per-student spending more efficiently and effectively. Currently, less than 3% of operating dollars are allocated to schools based on the number of students.
By sending millions of dollars of additional spending to public schools to establish full-day kindergarten programs, whose benefits have been shown to disappear by third grade, Senate Bill 1316 funds systems rather than students.