Pay for K?
Seattle schools are going through or finishing up their budget process right now. One budget problem all K-5 and K-8 schools have to deal with is the fact that the state only pays for a half day of kindergarten; Schools who offer a full day (most of them), have to pay for those FTE’s somehow.
In past years, most north end schools use a “Pay for K” scheme, with varying amounts paid each month by families. Most south end schools have not. For schools that have not had a Pay for K scheme, federal Title 1 funds apparently have been used to make up the difference, since many of them have the required high percentage of FRL (Free and Reduced Lunch) students. But even some schools without Title 1 funds have managed to avoid Pay for K.
This year things seem to be different, for a variety of reasons. One, the state budget shortfall has seriously affected the district, and school budgets are feeling the pain. Two, the percentage of FRL required to get Title 1 funds has increased. Three, the closures and consolidations have resulted in situations where schools that in the past would qualify for Title 1 no longer do.
Our school is strongly considering a Pay for K program. I’m interested in hearing if there are any other schools who have not had such a program in the past now suddenly having to consider it, or if schools are needing to increase the amount they are getting from families each month.
Here is a spreadsheet, based on the 2009-10 enrollment guide, with each school’s “Pay for K” comments. I’m guessing some of these might not now be accurate.
In past years, most north end schools use a “Pay for K” scheme, with varying amounts paid each month by families. Most south end schools have not. For schools that have not had a Pay for K scheme, federal Title 1 funds apparently have been used to make up the difference, since many of them have the required high percentage of FRL (Free and Reduced Lunch) students. But even some schools without Title 1 funds have managed to avoid Pay for K.
This year things seem to be different, for a variety of reasons. One, the state budget shortfall has seriously affected the district, and school budgets are feeling the pain. Two, the percentage of FRL required to get Title 1 funds has increased. Three, the closures and consolidations have resulted in situations where schools that in the past would qualify for Title 1 no longer do.
Our school is strongly considering a Pay for K program. I’m interested in hearing if there are any other schools who have not had such a program in the past now suddenly having to consider it, or if schools are needing to increase the amount they are getting from families each month.
Here is a spreadsheet, based on the 2009-10 enrollment guide, with each school’s “Pay for K” comments. I’m guessing some of these might not now be accurate.
Comments
Who is responsible for collecting the monthly fees? Are they sent directly to the District or would the school's parents or staff collect and account for them?
What happens if a family refuses to pay? What if enough refuse that the amount collected does not cover the cost of the teacher? Who is responsible for making people pay? What are the consequences for not paying? At some point will children be expelled from school or the teacher fired?
So many schools have one full day K class and then 1-2 half day classrooms. In this case, the school is not incurring any additional expense for the full day K classroom and therefore they both can't and don't charge for this program.
As the mechanics, typically the funds are donated into the parent bank account. Then at some point in the year, the district will invoice the school for the difference between what they were budgeted for and what they spent. At this point someone from the parent group typically writes a check.
In many cases, principals can choose to cover the extra expense of the unfunded half of K out of building funds but those funds are rapidly shrinking.
My other comment is that at TOPS, the program is actually somewhat different that the typical Pay for K, as the money collected goes specifically to pay the salary of a 3rd kindergarten teacher who works 20 hours per week - it doesn't just disappear into the school budget to offset the shortfall in state funding.
Plus, if we can "Pay for K" what is to stop schools from adding "pay for art", or "pay for library", and collecting money from families monthly to restore or bolster services lost in tough economic times? Next year when I'm no longer paying $170/month for K, it would be easy to pay, say, $50/month to make sure we can keep a full-time librarian instead of cutting her hours. But certainly that wouldn't be fair because not every family at every school could do this.
I'm not saying I want to see us go down this slippery slope. I'm just pointing out how strange it is to assess parents a monthly tuition for services that the district thinks are important but fails to fund.
BTW, friends and family around the country are shocked when I tell them that I have to pay each month for my daughter to go to public school! Does this happen anywhere else in the country?
Helen Schinske
Mikala
And BTW IAK, my family in Florida didn't believe that I paid tuition for kindergarten either. They were shocked and had never heard of it and thought it unconstitutional. Everyone K family at our school was expected pay, but the school had no recourse if a family didn't pay. There were a few families that didn't pay based on their philosophical opposition to such a thing (paying for public school) and the school couldn't do anything about it.
The way the District gets away with it, is that they fulfill their responsibility by paying for one 1/2 day k, and one full day k for each school. However, most families want full day k. So to fulfill the demand schools can enhance their k program and make all classrooms full day but have to do so at their own expense. Since middle class schools get very little "extra" discretionary funds, they have to collect "tuition". Lower income schools that get "extra" discretionary funds (Title I and LAP) use it to pay for K, and are able to avoid charging their families "tuition".
the state has definitely gotten a pass over the last decade - everyone blames the district for cuts and decisions made, and while sometimes that's appropriate or is related to the unions, a lot of times it's funding from the state that drives things.
we write (or wrote) our pay for k checks to the school itself (not pta, site council or asb) and submit them to the school secretary - i don't know what account they are deposited in - but the money is used to fund the k staff over and above one full day k (our school has 2)
While all schools had ONE full day K class and 1-3 half day classes, parents complained about the "unfairness." Only a limited number of families were able to participate in the full day K program and families that were assigned to the half day class would be required to pay for after-school care by and third party provider if they wanted full day.
Many parents felt that it was "unfair" that they paid for their child to receive six hours of school when other kids got six hours without paying. Additionally, the full day kids received an integrated curriculum with one K teacher while the other students got enrichment.
In many cases, pay for K, was less expensive than the on-site before and after care programs. So pay for K became a "fair" thing as the district only pays for full day K at title one schools.
The reason why pay for K charges vary so widely is because the district does not have a standard charge for a half day K teacher. The schools are charged based on the actual cost of the teacher. So if your school has more experienced senior teachers, it costs more. If you school has a brand new teacher, it costs less.
Another reason it varies is that often the building principal will use some building funds to subsidize the program. When a family doesn't pay either for any reason, the school still needs to use funds to reimburse the district. The district does not say, oh well, you had 10 FRL students, we are going to reduce your bill. Nope. That comes from building funds or parent fundraising.
My other comment is that at TOPS, the program is actually somewhat different that the typical Pay for K, as the money collected goes specifically to pay the salary of a 3rd kindergarten teacher who works 20 hours per week - it doesn't just disappear into the school budget to offset the shortfall in state funding.
That's been true in the past. Unfortunately for next year TOPS will mostly likely have to (also) include some form of a standard Pay for K scheme, probably with some PTA subsidy and a sliding scale.
I guess wanting to increase school readiness for all students is all hat and no cattle in Seattle
washingtonpolicywatch.org/2008/03/03/full-day-kindergarten-on-the-menu-in-tacoma/
I remember hearing from a woman in Issaquah that her public school's kindergarten program was 2.5 hours four days a week -- no school on Wednesdays. There are even districts that have no public kindergarten at all.
Helen Schinske
Here is a list of what I paid at Thornton Creek:
$1125/YR for kindergarten (it has since gone up)
$250 at the beginning of every year to cover school supplies and camping trips (the school took each class on two camping trips per year).
$200 average per year on field trips. At Thornton Creek families paid for their own field trips and the classes went on an average of 1 field trip per week.
$200 per year for instrumental music in 4th and 5th grades.
And lets not forget that these are all "mandatory" fees. Not optional, not fundraising, not voluntary. But mandatory.
And on top of all of the "mandatory" fees, there is fundraiser after fundraiser that parents are expected to contribute to (the auction, the walkathon, bookfair, winter bazaar).
It really is exorbitant, and we are setting a precedent here. What else will we have to pay for? Real Math? Science (if you want more than a kit)? Where does it end?
If you're mad about this, call your legislator.
(Those are the facts, please don't consider that my opinion as well.)
In New Zealand, you sign your child up on their 2nd birthday and they begin going three afternoons/week when they turn three. When they turn 4, they go five mornings/week... so when they go to school (on their 5th birthday generally, although the law doesnt require attendance until they are 6), most children are socialised to a learning environment and many are already at the point of being ready to read, write and work with many early math concepts...
Other families might choose Playcentre for their children, which is a similar concept but centred on a parent-run/involved co-op model, charging a minimal fee and still with trained teachers in place...
In New Zealand also, there are Kohanga Reos operating all around the country (Maori language nests) where children (Maori and non-Maori - Pakeha = white) which are Maori language/culture immersion preschools....
There are also private preschools, many of which are Montessori or Waldorf/Steiner-based... there are now Steiner schools/high schools in both New Zealand and Australia...
That said, the figures are interesting. $200 a year to cover about 30+ field trips is pretty good value. It sort of looks like TC may be in the range of raising $1000 per child, counting all of this and fundraising. Isn't that the shockingly high number given for a different elementary on a different thread? Difference is that that elementary is a reference area school, not an alternative one. Still, interesting.
Another source of unfairness was that the full day kindergarten was considered as a separate line on enrollment form, a "program." Therefore, the usual tie-breakers occurred. At Bryant (and I suspect other large elementaries) the full day program would completely fill with siblings.
I have issues with sibling priority for any alternative program, but I suspect I hold the minority view here. I just don't see why an alternative (choice) program with long waiting lists should offer sibling priority. Would be a lot fairer for all kids to be part of the lottery for admission. However, that's a different topic.
In this case though, sibling priority was clearly abused, because, while it is arguable that siblings should get priority assignment at the same school for the convenience of the family, one cannot make the same argument that the younger siblings ought to get priority seats in a designated classroom within that school.
The upshot was that the full day kindergarten was full with younger siblings and the half day program heavily weighted with first and only children, with a few scattered younger siblings that the parent thought too immature for full day kindergarten.
Did the switch to Pay for K change that? Are kindergarten classrooms now balanced with younger siblings and children in families new-to-the-school?
Plus we have even higher fundraising expectations (auction, bake sales, Bryant Blast, gift wrap, etc)
For a middle class family like mine, this is a lot of money. While we manage to pay it, it is taxing, and I question how much is too much? How much burden can we put on families? Like I said will we pay for Singapore books? Will we pay for science to supplement kits? Will we pay for art, music, library? Where is the line?
I can definitely see the problem with some kids getting "free" full day K while everyone else got only half-day K. And I do understand that differential pricing is related to each individual school's budget.
But I'm still with AdHoc that it just seems strange, almost illegal, to have this sort of set-up in a public school system. Shouldn't the solution have been that all schools offer only half-day K if that's all the district could afford and there is no legal mandate to educate until age 8 anyway?
And why stop with K? Art is not offered beyond 3rd grade, I think, at my daughter's school, so why not just keep charging me $170/month each year to fund art for all grades, and so on. If there is no legal mandate to fund art, but parents want it and will pay for it, why not? The precedent has been set.
Not commenting on either practive, just pointing out a difference.
But maybe it's not a difference: TC values the feild trip, the other school values smaller class size...same amount of non-district funding, different priorities.
hmmm,,,,,
Pay-for-K IS still voluntary, even if it looks mandatory. It is in reality, just another form of fundraising. You could always decide not to pay. Then what? Are they going to kick you out? I doubt it. I doubt they could. And even if they could, it would be a huge hassle and expense to squeeze blood out of that turnip. They'd have to sue you and win, then they'd have to sue you again to collect... your kid would have already graduated from high school by then.
Ok. A few other states have pay for K.... but even the state of Georgia has universal preschool. That is, if you are FRL.... you get FREE, state run, accredited, preschool with transportation... others have to pay (as they do everywhere else). It's pretty shocking that Washington doesn't even really pay for universal kindergarten.. and Georgia guarantees preschool.
I realize we do have a few ECAP (state funded Early Childhood Assistance Program) preschools... but not many, and not universal.
The thing is, early childhood education is a good thing. Most people think kindergarten is a good thing. Our president has been talking about increasing funding for early childhood education. However, our state does not adequately fund kindergarten. The law in Washington is Compulsory education for children ages 8 to 18. Therefore, when push comes to shove, unless that changes, unless the state gets rich, unless the president's budget includes more funding for early childhood education, the state will not be adequately funding kindergarten.
Seattle Citizen, that's a good question, isn't it? What qualifies as enrichment vs basic education. Something to think about.
Middle class schools that fundraise and charge tuition get basic services like full day K, art, music, field trips, school supplies....
schools that don't fundraise and charge tuition get a bare bones, no frills school, shell of a school, that does not offer full day K, art, music, field trips, school supplies......
At this point schools can't stop fundraising or charging tuition. They have been forced to do it. And, until schools are fully funded I think they should be allowed to continue fundraising.
I pay my share. But I don't like it, and I will continue to pressure the powers that be and advocate for fully funded schools.
From what I understand, the costs vary per school because of the senority of the kindergarten teacher whose salary is essentially being covered by the pay for K. For example, if the View Ridge Kindergarten teacher has more senority (and a higher salary) than say the Bryant teacher, then the View Ridge pay for K program will cost more per student than the Bryant program, and so on.
Also, I think it is pretty standard for Pay for K costs to be waived for students who qualify for free/reduced lunch. It is mentioned as one of the "perks" in the notice that goes out with the applications for free/reduced lunch.
At my child's school, checks are written to the school, not to the PTA, and they are collected by the school secretary.
This is definitely an issue that is worth writing your legislator about. Very few parents actually send their children to half-day kindergarten.
History, art, music, theater, metal shop, wood shop, home-ec, drafting, business, CTE, AP, IB, APP, ALO, CDB?, ICDB!, Projecto Saber...enrichment.
Read, write, calculate, hypothesize at a tenth-grade level? Basic.
new thread?
Sadly, I'll bet twenty percent of seniors in this city have never been camping. That's why I'll put a plug in here for a) Islandwood, on Bainbridge, which does a very good job in reaching out to Seattle kids who can't afford it, providing scholarship for overnight and longer stays at their wonderful environmental learning center (courtesy of the Brainerds, who made a little money developing Adobe, and wanted to give back to the community...
and b) the North Cascades Institute, which does a smiilar thing in their very cool ELC on the shores of Diablo Lake on Route 20, high in the North Cascades...
I won't even go into the question of whether these services should be spread around ALL students in a district ("here, here's your three minute camping experience!") I guess by valuing these scholarships, I undercut my position on public education funding...aurrghhh! Life is so complicated!
True education, in the Greek sense, was reserved for the (generally) male rich - languages, history, science, art, music, 'the grand tour' of Europe etc....
We havent really come very far - what kids now are offered as a basic public education is just enough to get them into the (slightly more sophisticated, skilful) labour pool when they grow up.... you want something more than that for your child? Well then, dig deep in your own (individual and collective) pockets...
I wondered about this, too. Could View Ridge decide it wants to charge $500/month? Is there some guide or bound? Another uncovered weirdness about SPS that continue to astonish me.
When we got the pay-for-K form, it told us that if you didn't pay the fee (and weren't eligible for FRL), your child would need to be picked up after the official time end for 1/2 day K (11:30 or something like that). Our school had no 1/2 day option. There was an implication that if you didn't pay, but left your kid in school, that they could sic the collection agencies after you.
It gave us an incentive to tell them that our child would not be attended our assigned school.
Bryant is a great example of a very ethical school with this practice. They have changed their price every year based on their actual costs. They used to me in the low $200s and then when their senior teacher (presumably most expensive) retired and was replaced with less senior teacher (presumably less expensive) they lowered the cost of Pay for K for that year to $170. I found that level of integrity very refreshing.
$250 is not the cost so does that extra money to to the school budget or does it now go to the district and can the district deal with it.
My bet is that this change came about because of Jane Addams. Jane Addams had advertised Pay for K at $250 which was higher than everyone else for a brand new untested program. If the district had had any sense at all they would have made full day K free and given folks a reason to pick the school.
AFAIK, if you are in half day, you must do the mid day pick up. There is no bus.
This is, I believe, an item of faith at the school: no family should have to forgo school because they can't afford it, neither all-day K nor field trips. We use nearly all of our community-raised funds to pay for field trip scholarships. I can't say that this will continue to be school policy, but I certainly hope so.
The TOPS FINANCIAL POLICY says “All students have access to all educational experiences, including enrichment programs and extracurricular activities at TOPS. Student participation in such activities shall not be denied due to the family’s inability to pay the cost of the activity."
Maureen, so it seems that you can get 1/2 K at one school in the NE with bussing. If you don't get into that school, then you get a mandatory assignment of pay for K.
In the past, this has not been too much of a deal, all things relative. Nearly all the schools have scholarships and the PTAs raise enough money to cover any funding shortfalls. Plus the schools are well enough regarded that most folks are willing to manage the fee even while grumbling about the unfairness of it all.
However, this policy is really going to be tested this year at Jane Addams. A whole lot of families are going to be assigned to the new 4 Ks at JA and they are going to be required/requested to pay $2500 for the wonderful option of their mandatory assignment. Not only is this fee larger than most of the other options, it is a brand new program with no track record and no PTA money for scholarships.
I like everyone gets so tired of all of the district mis-steps but this one is big enough it might bring Pay for K crashing around their ears. $250/month and then mandating that everyone charge $250/month when so many schools were under $200 is just too far.
If your daycare is better & cheaper or if you are at home, you certainly can look at the option of half day.
But is this a good option? Is it good to have a full day k class and have your child miss 1/2 day?
It's not only socially awkward to have your kid be the only one (or one of only a couple) of kids that leaves a full day k class at midday, but it can be academically challenging too. Your child is missing 1/2 day of work that the other kids in their class are receiving.
Some schools, like TC, tried to have all of the academics in the morning, and all of the non academics (fun stuff like PE, art, singing) in the afternoon. They had 1/2 day kids attend in the AM, so they received the academics, however, these children missed out on all the "fun" stuff at school.
Not sure that is a great introduction to school.
I know I'm in the minority but my child would have benefited from a 1/2 day K, and I would have chosen that option if it were available, but I didn't like the idea of enrolling him in a full day K and pulling him out 1/2 day (he would have been the only 1/2 day kid that year). Very awkward.
Anyone work on a budget with Pay for K who can add more information?
And I know we now have a weighted staffing formula instead, but I don't think that accounts for actual salaries either, does it?
The Jane Addams K situation is big. Wow.
I don't think any other schools in the NE cluster offer free all day K which means that our FRL numbers will likely continue to rise as families who cannot afford to pay for kindergarten and before and after school care will look for other options. Our 8:30 start time and on-site before and after school care will likely attract more working families, too.
I see the potential for major demographic differences between AS#1 and the other NE cluster schools as a result of the pay for K situation. I'm pretty sure that Broadview Thompson and Northgate also offer free all day K in the North cluster so our demographics will not be so out of whack there.
Some PTSAs & BLTs picked up part of the full day K budget pieces, that other schools added to the pay for K cost. Like extra playground supervision, extra office staff, PCP staff, field trips, tutors, etc.
I haven't heard anything about standardizing the Pay for K costs cluster-wide.
You can opt for a half-day at Rogers, but not many families do it. The classes are structured for full days, with most of the meaty stuff, like math and reading, in the mornings, and science, art, reading buddies, music, library, and PE, etc.. in the afternoons. Swimming lessons (part of PE) would be bi-monthly, in the mornings, so half-day kids would not miss out on those.
I can see that a difference in number of students *could* mean a difference in tuition charged. If an FTE costs $60K, they could just divide however many FTEs they need for each extra half day kindy by the number of students. If they do, how are FRL students' portion paid? Does the school eat that cost or is it paid by the district?
And in that case, if students withdraw or enter midyear, the tuition should be recalculated. That's not really fair though, so perhaps there's a cushion or something?
I still cannot see how they can say that one teacher costs more than another. I am pretty sure that school budgeting always used an average FTE cost. So it just doesn't make sense with what I know of the budgeting process, but I have never served on BLT or a budget committee so my information is incomplete. But I still question the more expensive teacher explanation. It just seems weird.
Positions funded by Self-Help funds (fees and/or donations) will be expended at actual salary and TRI costs. In addition to paying for actual salaries and TRI, Self-Help must also cover benefits and sick leave substitute costs.
From (p 36):
Guidelines for Fee Supported Kindergarten
and note - it's not the district we should be railing against on this matter (as others have already said), it's the state - and you could argue that it's not the state, it's the tax structure, which we, the people, are responsible for establishing.
we have met the enemy, and it is us.
"We respectfully ask our legislators to honor their constitutional obligation to prioritize and fund public education so our 1 million public school children and their educators can succeed in the 21st century."
petition here
It also seems odd that FRL rates seem to drop off in 8th grade(for our school at least)--do family incomes increase in that year, or do kids become self conscious and not enroll?