We’ve previously written that we subscribe to the letter and the spirit of the well-known quote from Pres. John F. Kennedy’s only inaugural address: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Which is why, over many years of observing the workings of local government and the way certain residents or groups of residents exploit it, we’ve come to the conclusion that there are two basic groups: net tax payers (the “NTPs”) and the net tax users (the “NTUs”).
Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised by the admission that we don’t particularly like the NTUs – which is why we sometimes refer to them as “freeloaders.” It’s nothing personal, mind you. It’s more a public policy thing, and a matter of prioritizing the needs of the NTPs along the lines of what JFK was talking about.
That usually sends certain readers into paroxysms of outrage, which both amuses us and makes us happy.
And in search for some new amusement and happiness, we found an article in the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate that seemed to fit the bill, titled: “District 64 punts on full-day kindergarten until new superintendent takes over” (March 25, 2014)
The article talks about one of our “favorite” (i.e., most loathesome) governmental devices, the survey.
We loathe governmental surveys because they always seem to be commissioned to produce results that the governmental body, or some significant faction of it, wants – but for which it feels the need to fabricate some supporting data in order to provide sufficient political cover for the public officials who will approve it.
In this most recent case, the survey was another one of those easily-manipulated “on-line” ones commissioned by the Board of Park Ridge-Niles School District 64 to find out whether parents of D-64 students wanted the proposed full-day kindergarten program. The results, as reported in the H-A article: 79% of all surveyed parents and 86% of surveyed parents of current pre-school students supported FREE full-day kindergarten in their neighborhood school.
We could have predicted that in our sleep. For free.
But when those on-line survey takers were asked if they would be willing to PAY for the extra half-day kindergarten program in their neighborhood school, guess what? Only 32% of all surveyed parents, and only 35% of surveyed pre-school parents, answered “probably yes.”
We could have predicted that in our sleep, too. Also for free.
That’s because NTUs (a/k/a freeloaders) only want things if they are free or, at the very least, where the benefits to them substantially outweigh their costs – with the difference being made up by the NTPs. That’s why, for example, many/most parents of D-64 kids want no expenses spared by the District: if they are paying $12,000 a year in property taxes and $4,000 of it goes to D-64, they’re still ahead the approximately $9,000+ difference between that $4,000 and D-64’s roughly $13,000 per-student cost. Throw a second student in the mix and the delta is a whopping $22,000+.
Per year. Every year they have at least one kid in the D-64 schools.
Multiply that by 9 years (grades K-8) and we’re talking between $81,000 to almost $200,000 of benefits over costs for two children. Add a third or fourth kid and it becomes almost obscene, albeit ecstasy for the NTUs.
Not surprisingly, our favorite School Board member, John Heyde, did what he has done so well for so long. He supported the full-day kindergarten…but only if it could be done for free. Heyde can’t bring himself to make parents who what amounts to enhanced babysitting pay for it when the NTPs remain so fat and docile.
And also not surprisingly, Scott Zimmerman – the Charlie McCarthy to Heyde’s Edgar Bergen – was for it, too. Go figure.
Lori Hinton, Ass’t Sup’t for Student Learning who reported on the survey results at this past Monday (03.24.14) night’s meeting, added the proper dose of edu-bureaucratese by telling the Board to survey K-1 teachers, study the space requirements, and make sure they get all the “stakeholders” on board with the decision. In other words, D-64?s minister of propaganda, Bernadette Tramm, had better prepare for some overtime if she’s going to bamboozle those “stakeholders” if/when the decision is made to go forward with the program when new Supt. Laurie Heinz shows up this summer.
Of course, nobody at D-64 thought about going out of their way to survey the NTPs. That might skew the desired results, which were effectively manipulated by the District’s posting an announcement of the survey on its website on February 24, e-mailing the survey link directly to all D-64 parents (but not the NTPs), distributing it to area pre-schools (but not the NTPs), and closing the survey site on March 10.
We could find no press release about the survey, nor any story about it in the H-A or the Park Ridge Journal during the two weeks the survey process was going on and NTPs could respond. Chalk that up to Ms. Tramm’s deft touch and knowing when silence is golden.
We aren’t ready to predict which way this decision will go. If the NTPs wake up and realize that they might end up footing the bill for free enhanced babysitting service for the NTUs, they might start making nasty phone calls to their elected school board members and demanding explanations.
That’s when those bogus on-line surveys prove their worth.
To read or post comments, click on title.
33 comments so far
NO to full-day kindergarten. Taxes are high enough as it is.
Just to clarify, the direct quote from the article is as follows:
“Board member John Heyde said that he would be all for a full-day kindergarten — if the district could do it for free. But since it can’t, he wondered if this was the best way to spend the money. He also wondered whether it should be a priority”.
I agree that Hyde did not mention the potential of charging parents for the additional hours or some sort of fee structure, but I think a reader might be left with the wrong impression from your post.
You said the following…..”He supported the full-day kindergarten…but only if it could be done for free”. When I first read your post I was left with the impression he was for it as long as it was free to the parents (no additional charges). In other words, he was for going ahead with it and not passing along any costs.
Reading the actual article, that is not what he is saying. What he appears to be doing is acknowledging that full day kindergarten would cost the district money (it cannot be done for free)and questioning if that is the right use for limited resources.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We tend to believe that a Harvard/Chicago Law grad can say what he means and mean what he says. So when he says what he said, we will read it as it was written – which just happens to be consistent with his long-standing philosophy of government that he has demonstrated again and again.
Your quoting of JFK is appreciated by this Boomer who was inspired by his message that cold January day. Funny how the Democrats actually quote Reagan more than Kennedy, and never his “ask not” challenge.
You are totally correct about this full-day kindergarten being a glorified babysitting service. I would bet the people who want it are tired of paying for the Park District’s babysitting services a/k/a “programs.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s because government, especially here in corrupt and bankrupt Illinois, is all about asking: “Where’s mine?” (or “Ubi Est Mea?” according to the late, great Mike Royko).
NTPs and NTUs are great acronyms that stand for very descriptive terms. I was an NTU for all the years my 3 kids were in D-64 and D-207 schools, and even thought the youngest one graduated South several years ago I’m still an NTU (and will be for at least 7 more years by my calculations).
Although I plan to stay here indefinitely, if I were to leave immediately my 7 years of NTU debt would never be repaid. And if somebody with a bunch of D-64/D-207 kids moved into my house and did the same thing the total NTU debt could be north of a half million dollars. Who would make up that debt, other than other NTPs?
EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s the math of it alright.
You said “what amounts to enhanced babysitting”.. When does it amount to it being school? What grade?
There are plenty of other private schools here in PR that charge for full day and are successful. Paying for public school? Is that even legal? All that shows to me is poor management. Can having a teacher there for 2.5 hours longer be that bad?
What we need are some fiscally responsible personnel in the dist. 13K a year, for mediocre scores? There are other problems here.
I can say this, test results and ratings have shown that this district has been declining for years. I don’t know if full day K is the answer.
btw, Bender sent out at least 2 emails to parents about the survey. I want to say the schools also sent them out directly.
Here is the email that went out on 2/24 – A reminder followed on 3/5—–
To all District 64 Parents/Guardians:
District 64 is seeking preliminary input from parents of current students and prospective kindergarten students as well as community members regarding the possibility of offering full-day kindergarten. As you may know, District 64 currently offers a half-day program (either morning or afternoon) at its five neighborhood elementary schools.
Results of this survey will be shared with the Board of Education at its March 24 meeting, as it considers whether Park Ridge-Niles District 64 residents are interested in further exploring a full-day kindergarten program here. The survey will close on Monday, March 10.
Please enter the brief survey now.
Thank you for participating.
Dr. Phil Bender
Superintendent
EDITOR’S NOTE: “…as it considers whether Park Ridge-Niles District 64 residents are interested in further exploring a full-day kindergarten program here.”
That sounds like Bender – presumably with the endorsement of the School Board – considers D-64 parents as synomymous with “District 64 residents” notwithstanding no real effort to survey anybody but parents of students. Of course, if the D-64 Board really wanted to know whether the NTP “residents” supported this idea, they’d put it to referendum this November. But we’re not going to hold our collective breath on that one.
I’d like to think this kind of manipulation will end when Bender leaves, but since the school board supports this kind of manipulation and dishonesty that doesn’t seem likely.
To 03.26.14 8:55 pm re whether charging for full-time kindergarten is even legal, it should be if it’s treated like the pre-after-school program.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s an interesting point. Wonder if the School Board will even discuss it?
So by your definition everyone including yourself is an NTU since everyone uses things like roads and sewers. Why not add toll gates at city maintained roads so people who don’t drive on them don’t have to — gasp — fund those who do?
I am positive JFK did not have your twisted interpretation in mind when he spoke of the need for more citizens to give back to our country. I think public service is more what he had in mind rather than regarding people who use public schools or parks as freeloaders.
You, PW, and your ilk including Mayor Schmidt are real pieces of work.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We can begin your education by pointing out the distinction between roads and sewers: the former are paid for out of the City’s general revenues, while the latter are separately charged and billed for on a use basis.
Unfortunately, we don’t have the time or the inclination to provide the kind of remedial education you appear to need, judging from your attempt to compare the public funding of roads (available for use by all community residents, non-residents, police and emergency vehicles, etc.) to the public funding of an entirely new program that will service only one narrowly-drawn “special interest” group: public school kindergarten students whose parents want full-day kindergarten service but don’t want to pay anything for it.
But, frankly, we don’t really expect you to understand what we just wrote, just like you clearly didn’t understand our post or the JFK quote.
I’m not a “District 64 Parent/Guardian” so I guess that’s why they didn’t survey me.
As to the commenter who asked if it was legal to charge for public school: What the heck do you think your property tax bill is?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Whoa, FWT, we believe the comment was referring to the new amenity of full-day kindergarten, not the whole educational program.
How are you calculating $13,000 per student?
EDITOR’S NOTE: The “Illinois At-a-Glance Report Card” for 2012-13, provided by the State of Illinois, shows a $13,826/student cost for 2011-12; and a $14,745/student cost for 2012-13. So we’ve actually been low-balling it a bit.
Sorry.
Thanks, dear editor, for clarifying…. so are they calling the full-day kindergarten an “amenity”, and if so, is it legal to charge for an amenity?
EDITOR’S NOTE: We would doubt D-64 will call it an “amenity,” if only because they won’t want to take a risk of locking themselves into or out of a situation they’re not quite sure about at this time. And the freeloaders who want the extra services without paying for them aren’t going to call it an “amenity,” for the same reason.
Once again, where you stand depends on where you sit. You are completely oblivious to the high cost of child care (despite the poor rate of pay for caregivers), the financial necessity of most mothers working to make up for near-flat real household incomes — whether they live here or in some lesser burg — and the concept that children are not merely hobbies for the individuals who birthed them but future taxpayers themselves. Based on that obliviousness, what else would you call quality full-day kindergarten but an amenity? Clearly, these lowlifes have to stop propagating. Oh, wait; we insist they do unless they’re chaste. And if you don’t see how that connects, no surprise. Happy hall of mirrors.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ah, finally, an inadvertant mention of the inconvenient truth: this new full-time kindergarten program IS a form of babysitting, because of “the financial necessity of most mothers working to make up for near-flat real houshold incomes” – and, therefore, their entitlement to free babysitting to avoid “the high cost of child care (despite the poor rate of pay for caregivers).”
Thank you, Mr./Ms. Anonymous, no more questions. Thank you very, very much. You’ve been a lovely, lovely witness.
Dear Anon. at 11:04 a.m.: So why should the rest of us have to pay for your childcare?
5th ward:
For the same reason I have to pay for lights at a football field when my child does not play football. Life just isn’t fair, huh??
EDITOR’S NOTE: And some have to pay for those lights when they don’t even have kids.
So what’s the next step? A shorter day for first, second, third graders? After all they’re in school all the way until 3:30, which could be construed as “childcare” as well. How about charging for PE or art or anything of those silly “classes” not deemed “essential” by all of you esteemed experts?
And truly, when JFK posed his question about what we might do for our country, I don’t think demonizing public school “users” is remotely what he had in mind.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Who said anything about a shorter day for anybody – other than perhaps the teachers union? Who said anything about charging for PE or art?
Nobody’s “demonizing public school ‘users'” – we’re just pointing out how certain people want whatever they can get so long as it’s for free, but don’t seem to think it’s valuable enough to actually pay for.
PD (and 5th):
……….or the new pool that some folks clearly are against, or the new park land will actually increase my taxes or concerts in the park or parades and so on and so on and so on…..there are examples everywhere!!
That is my point. You go off on the unfairness of the taxpayer paying for extended kindergarten (by the way it has not even happened yet). The truth is that there are all kinds of services that my tax dollar provides that I either do not use or could give a rat’s derriere about.
You long for this cafeteria world where you simply pay as you go or for what you use. Sorry but the world does not work that way.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The world doesn’t work that way yet – but it is being driven in that direction by the ever-increasing freeloading that’s encouraged by politicians who have become masters at creating factions and buying those factionalized votes legally, using public funds.
The central point of this post is how full-day kindergarten, which even the NEA recognizes as being primarily to “close achievement gaps between young children from minority and low-income families and their peers,” is desired by most of the interested parents only so long as it is free for them; i.e., their only cost being only their property tax increase, not the full cost of the service itself.
Anon 11:04- Why stop at Kindergarten full days. What about PRK 4? PRK3? I mean baby-sitters are expensive! I put Anon 11:04 with every single survey respondent who said they would like full day Kindergarten..if it’s FREE only. Gross.
Is the role of the “state” or district to babysit your kid so you can go work or do yoga? Maybe sacrifice your vacation, or iPad or new SUV, and be responsible for your childs education.
Here is a shock to many many takers…there are a bunch of kids who take advantage of full day kindergarten…RIGHT HERE in Park Ridge. But, here’s the catch: They write a check to do so. That’s life. I wonder how they survive.
Isn’t $14K/year enough for you little unParented child from 1st-8th? No wonder so many of the children in Park Ridge are animals in public while their parents stare at their phones. I guess once you pop the kid out, it’s societies problem now, right? Yes, I’m exaggerating, because there are many well-behaved children in Park Ridge, but I bet the ones that aren’t, are parented by the parents who look to society to raise their child in all ways possible.
So, continue to have your kid behind others, because you are too cheap to invest in your childs full-day Kindergarten.
EDITOR’S NOTE: To the freeloader mentality, there is no such thing as enough – so long as somebody else is paying for it.
If I were going to pay tuition for school, why would it be for a public one?
Lets not compare this with the before and after school programs — those are childcare, no learning, no educational benefit. Just a romper room.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Because you’d only be paying for a half-day – you already get the other half for free. And you’ll be getting free education for the next 8 years after that, before you get 4 more free years from D-207. So you’re not going anywhere.
Since the parents don’t want to pay for the extra half-day of kindergarten but do pay for the before and after school programs, apparently “romper room” has more value to them. Or, as is actually the case, they know they can’t get free pre-after programs…yet.
You people, with your “takers” and your “freeloaders,” did you ever stop to consider to consider the benefits of a full day for K? Clearly at least one of you has since you are paying for it, which goes along with choosing private school.
Some of us “users” actually do think about the academic implications rather than wonder who is going to watch my kid while I go to yoga. In my experience my kids, who went to full day kindergarten, had an easier time transitioning to first grade than the kids who came from half day programs. I don’t know if they are achieving higher grades/test scores than those who came from half-day K but it would be interesting to study.
In any case, I think it’s reasonable to offer a full-day K that’s tuition based. I’d guess many parents would agree. It’s already been implemented in many Chicago schools for years.
But instead of assuming that’s where the district may go, you quote a board member out of context and automatically assume people will want full day free K or nothing because it fits your narrative that everyone who’s “using” the systems is out to bleed it dry.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Anecdote away.
As our note to 2:45’s comment states, the NEA recognizes full-day kindergarten as being primarily to “close achievement gaps between young children from minority and low-income families and their peers.” Hence its implementation by the CPS.
We quoted a notorious tax-and-spend Board member accurately. It’s not our fault he can’t speak more accurately, or more consistently with your interpretation.
As always you go to the extreme. It is not free. It is not the actual cost of the service provided but it is not FREE.
EDITOR’S NOTE: As always, you write unintelligibly. What’s “not free”?
Oh come on….how on earth is it unintelligible??
You wrote the following…..”Because you’d only be paying for a half-day – you already get the other half for free. And you’ll be getting free education for the next 8 years after that, before you get 4 more free years from D-207″.
I answered “it is not FREE”. How hard is that to understand??
If a person is able to send their child to d64 or d207 schools that means they live within the district pay taxes that go towards their child’s education. It is not free.
Do they pay the full cost for their child or children?? No they do not. That is the way public education has been in America for god knows how long. I know there is much about the system that you disagree with a person who sends their kids to public school (D64 or D207) is not doing it for free.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Then you should have quoted the relevant part of our note, like you just did. How hard is that to do?
Property taxes are assessed based on the home’s value, not based on how many services the homeowner uses or doesn’t use. So if an NTU pays the same amount of taxes on the same value home as the NTP, then there is no incremental additional cost for the school services; and, accordingly, they effectively are “free” to the NTU because he would be paying that same tax on his home whether he had kids in the school or not.
IF you really were too stupid to understand that, you probably couldn’t earn enough money to live in Park Ridge. So stop playing dumb.
First, some of you are implying that the extra half day would be in school for “learning”. If that is the case, then consider this: 2 (or 3) half days (based on the number of K teachers in PR schools) would translate into 4 (or 6) full day classrooms. That would require double the number of teachers (and all that entails in salaries and pensions, etc). That’s A LOT of free money.
Second, offering “free busing” to other “learning centers” for free is BABYSITTING.
Either way, that kind of expense should go to referendum for ALL taxpayers to decide.
3:52, actually the tuition based K programs in Chicago are being implemented in the schools with a more affluent population, because they are the ones who can afford to pay. The low income population is a different story. They are not being required to pay for a “luxury” they cannot afford.
Let’s rip up the senior center, abandon all senior services, and instead, and make it a full time kindergarten. I’m totally serious.
The seniors around here are paying a reduced real tax rate anyways – all those ridiculous exemptions like “senior freeze” and such. Do they really believe that the $2,000 a year or whatever they pay in taxes, compared to the $9,000 their next door neighbor pays, entitles them to any services above and beyond plowing, sewer and roads? I don’t think so. These free loading seniors are NTU.
Also, while I myself am a very frugal, thrifty and austere person, and my household budget is run the same way; I moved to this town precisely because it was affluent and because it can offer some of the benefits of affluence. Full day K should be part of that, in my opinion.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You’re about as serious as Milton Berle. Feel free to Google him.
Debt Serf –
The senior exemption is age based and amounts to $200-300 per year reduction in taxes, hardly a windfall.
The senior freeze exemption is age and income based and can indeed result in a significant reduction in property taxes. Last I checked the income level which could not be exceeded was $55,000.
Let’s remember the average HHI in Park Ridge is around $80K.
Also, love the quick morph from moms who work because of financial necessity and moms who go to yoga. You guys can’t become extinct fast enough.
And as for the cafeteria plan of only paying for services you use (and its corollary, not being allowed to use anything you don’t directly and separately pay for),make a quick turn right down to South America. Or the Middle East. There, people like you are in charge. As long as you don’t mind spending the money you begrudge kids, seniors, park users, etc. on gated community security, police, army, munitions, etc. to keep the takers in their place, you’ll be just fine.
Sheesh. The crap you spew. It’s not new. It’s all been done before. For aeons. And you live the life you do because a lot of nobodies said, “Enough, already!” I guess that makes you a taker. Or a freeloader. Or a girly man. Or ?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ouch! That’s some pretty brash talk from a rough tough anonymous commentator.
It’s also pretty scatterbrained (“HHI in Park Ridge is around $80K”? “Moms who go to yoga”? “Cafetaria plan”? “South America”? “Middle East”? “Gated community security”?), but logic never has been the strong suit – either inside or outside your happy hall of mirrors.
Appreciate the forum anyway. Let the reader decide what is or is not logical.
“You’re about as serious as Milton Berle. Feel free to Google him.”
I am serious. The neighbors on either side of me are seniors. And together they pay less than 1/2 of what I pay in yearly taxes. Yet their roads are plowed just like mine, they get a senior center in addition to the parks and pools. The senior freeze is worth a lot of money. Most seniors especially in this town earn less than $55,000 but live off the savings they’ve accumulated over the years.
If you want to talk about logic, then you can’t say that ‘free’ full-day K is free-loading; while completely disregarding the seniors who pay next to nothing in property taxes and yet enjoy the same benefits as everyone else.
Touche.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The seniors – just like everyone else in this town, including yourself – don’t have “their” roads, “their” police, “their” fire department, “their” water supply, etc. So your comment is based on a stupid premise and unworthy of further discussion.
You must be a senior. Of course you find raising the tax rate for seniors untenable. Heaven forbid the children have full day kindergarten. Parents are freeloaders but the seniors aren’t. You’re being completely intellectually dishonest.
There’s plenty of reasons to be against full day K but calling the parents freeloaders isn’t one of them.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This editor is over 60; he has no plans to retire (and, therefore, does not belong to AARP); he sees no reason to spare seniors or any other group from taxes; and he has no use for freeloaders of any age, color, gender and other stripe – including parents who want free full-day kindergarten because “enough” isn’t part of their vocabulary when OPM is being spent on THEIR kids.
NTUs aside, I love the blog and the discussion of park ridge topics. Keep up the good work!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks.
Sorry to jump into this late. I only occasionally read the blog, and I read this post for the first time today.
Your post leaves the impression that I am in favor of D64’s providing full-day kindergarten as long as we don’t pass on the cost to users. That is not correct. I do not believe it is possible or proper to pass the cost on to users, because the mission of the District is to provide a free education. The District is free not to provide full-day kindergarten, but if it does, it should do so for free.
That is not to say that D64 _should_ provide full-day kindergarten. As a previous commenter pointed out, I questioned whether this is the best use of the District’s limited funds. It may be, but I don’t feel comfortable making that judgment based only on a survey of parents. I’d like to see the new superintendent weigh in, and I’d want to review the research on whether full-day kindergarten meaningfully improves results for children in a suburban district like ours. Finally, I’d like to consider full-day kindergarten at a time when the District is making longer-range plans, not in isolation. Maybe at some point I’ll be in favor of providing full-day kindergarten, but I’m not ready to jump on that bandwagon yet.
I hope this helps clarify my position.
— John Heyde
EDITOR’S NOTE: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Heyde.
As to the District’s mission, however, we just took the following from the District’s website, taken from Board Policy 1:30:
Mission
The mission of District 64, a vital partnership of staff, families and community, is to inspire all students to embrace learning, discover their strengths and achieve personal excellence in order to thrive in and contribute to a rapidly changing world by providing a rich, rigorous and innovative curriculum integrating civil behavior and fostering resilience.
It’s always possible we might have missed it, but we don’t see the word “free” in there anywhere.
You are correct that the word “free” didn’t make it into the District’s mission statement, but it did make it into the Illinois Constitution: “Education in public schools through the secondary level shall be free.” (Ill. Const. Art. X Sec. 1.)
EDITOR’S NOTE: We trust that, now that you’ve discovered that, you’ll make sure that situation is corrected.
Nevertheless, it is our understanding that if half-day kindergarten is mandatory but full-day is optional, the “free” constitutional obligation would apply only to the half-day but not to the second-half/full-day portion.
That’s how St. Charles District 303 has been charging $2,000+ per student for its full-day kindergarten, and we understand that Batavia District 101 and Kaneland District 302, among other districts, offer an optional full-day program at a per-student price. So if you folks on the D-64 Board just declare full-day kindergarten “mandatory,” you should have no problem tacking that extra cost onto the property tax bills as well.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>