Governor disagrees with Flakoll

Governor Rounds took the step to respond to an editorial column in the Aberdeen American News by Cindy Flakoll against SB 115:
To the editor - Recently, Cindy Flakoll, legislative liaison for Concerned Women for America of South Dakota, questioned why state government involvement is necessary to provide pre-kindergarten programs in South Dakota. She went so far as to suggest last year's Senate Bill 115 would have "swept pre-kindergarten into the K-12 South Dakota education system." If she means the intent of SB115 was to make pre-kindergarten an integral part of South Dakota's K-12 system, it is simply not true.

and...

The fact of the matter is many South Dakota women, particularly single mothers, must work to make ends meet. The 2006 South Dakota Kids Count Factbook shows 77.5 percent of women with children under the age of 6 are in the work force. We know these children are out of their homes for at least part of the day. Pre-kindergarten already exists. The standards that would have been established by SB115 would simply provide parents with knowledge about the pre-kindergarten program their children attend.

M. Michael Rounds
Governor
Read it all here. It wasn't hard hitting, but it did make his point that he disagreed with what Cindy had to say about it.

Comments

nonnie said…
Rounds did not want to simply provide parents with knowledge about the pre-K program their children attend. He intended to establish pre-K as part of the public school system at taxpayer expense. It might have started innocently enough as a trial program, but it would have ended up as simply starting kids in school earlier.

Where did he think the schools were going to get the funds to create this new program when the schools are already strapped for funds?

Was it a backdoor approach by the schools themselves to up their student numbers and thus get more state aid to education, which is based solely on student numbers?

Basically people are tired of programs being added to school expense and then the same property taxpayers are expected to fund them. But I'm sure that those who now pay for a babysitter would be glad to have the state essentially same them much of their daycare expense with free to them public school pre-K.
ARQKON said…
When did it become the States responsibility to take care of children? PP said it right during the session, "nanny state" and "nanny staters"
Wanna help children? make it so their moms dont have to work.
lexrex said…
gov. rounds is right that the bill indeed does not sweep pre-k under the state's education system.

but we know that's the eventual intention. eventually, the state won't just fund the sioux falls pilot program but the whole state. and while it won't be compulsory, it will be funded by the taxpayer -- compulsory enough.

it does seem there is a need for pre-k programs, unfortunately, but the free market is already meeting that need, without the help of the state.


pp, did you turn off the anonymous comment option? the google password option isn't working for me. it forgets my password and makes me re-register every time i use it.
Anonymous said…
Members of Concerned Women for America should take a cruise, relax, enjoy themselves.

It must be exhausting to constantly fret about what consenting adults must be doing somewhere, and that young children may be getting a quality education.

After all, what's become of America when we allow people the personal freedom to do anything the Concerned Women don't agree with? What's become of America when we try to educate kids instead of sitting them in front of the tv to watch teletubbies (wait a minute! teletubbies aren't approved by the Concerned Women). Kids must be required to watch Benny Hinn.
Anonymous said…
Poster 2:42
I feel you are off base. They have concerns and they have the right to vocie them.
I also feel this is nothing more than a ploy to plcae very small child in schools.
Don't let the spin take you anywhere else.
Kids this are 3 and 4 need to be playing and being social with like not sitting in a classroom with extra teachers put the guidelines together and you will see.
This is social babysitting with colors and numbers thrown in. Something the parents need to be teaching. If they can't South Dakota and other states are in worse shape than i thought!
Anonymous said…
sorry for the spelling mistakes dirty keyboard and i don't proof before sending.
pookie said…
To lexrex

If the bill "indeed does not sweep pre-k under the state's education system," then what does it mean? Here is part of the bill:

The South Dakota Board of Education shall promulgate rules pursuant to chapter 1-26 to establish standards for the classification and accreditation of pre-kindergarten and K-12 schools within this state…

If it doesn't mean that, then I guess I don't understand much about these bills. But it sure looks like they just added pre-kindergarten to the K-12 schools in this bill. Appreciate your comment again, lexrex
pookie said…
The Governor said this:

"The 2006 South Dakota Kids Count Factbook shows 77.5 percent of women with children under the age of 6 are in the work force. We know these children are out of their homes for at least part of the day."

How do we know these kids are out of their homes for part of the day? What does it mean that the women are "in the work force"? Maybe some of them work at home. Maybe the kids are right by them and not out of their home. Governor seems to be assuming a lot here, if you ask me. But then no one asked me. That's why I'm blogging this.
Anonymous said…
Ohya. Most women working in SD have their kids right by their sides. How much foolishness do we have to tolerate from the rightwingnuts before they go away? CWA is a front for the Lahaye's of rapture fame. Like we should let them steer policy in any state.
Anonymous said…
As a dad (like PP with a spouse who works outside the home but with fewer kids), I am able to get into the free market and get pre-kindergarten for my kids. I know that with both of us out of the home during the day, it is important for our kids to have quality care as so much takes place in my kids’ development in these early years.

Because we have a good income, we are able to afford good pre-k experiences for our kids. Unfortunately, not everyone is in the same boat with an income to afford quality pre-school.

This ‘nanny state’ balderdash is only aimed at kids. We have rules for hunting lodges in South Dakota so that when I hunt I can stay at a place that is safe. Why can’t we have rules (and maybe a bit of support) so our kids are safe?
Anonymous said…
kids are as safe as parents want them to be!
There are some very, highly qualified home day care out there some of whom are not registered with the state and then there are some who are registered that are not safe. There are schools out there that are safe and some that are not safe. It is not the governments job to babysit kids! ids at this age need to play, and learn basic concepts that parents should be doing. They do not need a school setting. It will not be cost effective. child vs teachers & helpers. You can not put 20 to 25 kids in a room with one teacher and one helper that is dangerous!
feasant said…
This is where Rounds and I disagree. Let parents make a decision on what is best for their children! Mike you know dang well you think the State can take care of kids better than the parents.

No to mandatory pre school, let kids be kids for a few years anyway!

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th