Cutting full-day kindergarten a backward step

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 08/12/2021 (1115 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

THE Winnipeg School Division, the province’s largest, is cutting its full-day kindergarten pilot program. Academic evidence showed, early on, that students benefited from more time in class, but according to Celia Caetano-Gomes, the division’s superintendent of education, this didn’t extend to academic performance in later years and showed no sustained growth improvements.

It resulted in a benefit at the beginning of Grade 1, she said, but not continued academic growth. The pilot program didn’t study economic or social benefits to full-day kindergarten.

Critical thinkers might question this. Those who choose full-day kindergarten may not start academically at the same place as those who chose half-day kindergarten. Some kids need more time and educational support to show school-readiness. Their parents may struggle with poverty or lack other supports. Perhaps more single parents, economically disadvantaged people, newcomers to Canada, minorities, or those with generational trauma might choose full-day kindergarten. It would be a great outcome if these children were better ready at the start of Grade 1, but all children could benefit from increased support.

Also, what happened in Grades 1 and 2? Did the full-day kindergarten students actively fall behind in their academic growth and performance during these years, while the half-day kindergarteners caught up? It’s puzzling that the benefits don’t remain at the end of Grade 2.

Perhaps teachers spent time reinforcing basics for those who only had half-day kindergarten. Further, if the pilot study concluded full-day kindergarten benefits aren’t long-term, but all students are on equal footing at the end of Grade 2, this is a positive result. Without full-day kindergarten, these children might not demonstrate the same school readiness as a child from a more privileged background in their preschool years.

Some kids need extra help to get to the finish line. Schools could provide full-day programming at the beginning to get better literacy outcomes, but WSD has just cut that. If kids aren’t prepared, WSD seems willing to accept a mediocre outcome in later test scores and graduation rates.

Manitoba also has a huge child-care deficit, with many more kids needing care than there are spaces available. When I finally found child care, I kept my kids there through kindergarten because it provided all-day kindergarten. This boosted their school readiness.

I also needed work time, but this isn’t about us; it’s about that “social and economic” component of all-day kindergarten that’s missing from WSD’s pilot program study and decision.

Children will need help with social skills impacted by the pandemic. Parents want a “normal” work environment, for the good of their finances and mental health. Without adequate childcare, this isn’t possible. Kindergarten is also more meaningful academically than the average daycare placement.

Parents struggle with the logistics of getting kids to a short half day of kindergarten and then to daycare placements, if they are available. This can affect the whole family’s social and economic well-being, not just the child’s school academic readiness. But he WSD pilot didn’t consider the economic or social impacts in its study.

With regard to the economics, look at the pandemic’s effects on parents’ (particularly women’s) work productivity. When parents must manage child care while working, it’s a challenge. Unreasonable expectations during the pandemic forced many women out of the workplace. Adequate child care and educational opportunities for kids enable parents (mostly women) to return to full-time work.

Society loses out when women can’t work. Our communities can’t function when up to half the workforce leaves the workplace. Better educational options and child care mean more taxable income for government coffers.

In most North American schools, parents aren’t responsible for lunchtime child care. In Winnipeg, however, there’s an assumption parents will wait at the schoolyard to pick up elementary school children, including kindergarteners, walk home for lunch, and then return the older kids to school for the afternoon.

Most parents can’t do this, instead paying additional school lunch fees to provide supervision.

If we’re serious about improving educational outcomes and ending poverty, we lose out by cancelling full-time kindergarten. A full-time schedule, without this outdated parental lunch-hour obligation, would also allow schools to introduce long-overdue school nutrition programs.

There are multiple ways to provide breakfast, snacks and lunch for all at school, and those who can afford it should pay for it. However, imagine if every child might learn on an equal footing. Full stomachs could offer the ability to play, think and learn without disadvantage.

WSD is losing an opportunity to offer students a chance at school readiness, boost health outcomes and give parents a chance to rejoin the workforce. There’s a possibility of boosting academic outcomes simply by educating children for longer and feeding them.

We know, from decades of research, that school readiness, hunger and poverty are the real issues. Ending full-day kindergarten is a step backward for women and children’s well-being. This choice works against the province’s best economic interests; let’s stop pretending otherwise.

Joanne Seiff is a Winnipeg writer and parent with two graduate degrees, including a master’s degree in education.