Push for new kindergarten cutoff
A Senate bill to move up the cutoff date for enrolling in kindergarten and to fund preschool with half of the savings has sailed through its first committee. But similar attempts have faltered, even though child advocates and developmental psychologists universally agree that it’s an educationally sound and fiscally smart idea.
California is one of only four states that allow some 4-year-olds to attend kindergarten. The cutoff date for turning five in California is Dec. 2.
Sen. Joe Simitian’s SB 1381 would gradually shift the date so that starting in 2014, a child would have to be 5 years old by Sept. 1 to be admitted to kindergarten. Doing so would reduce enrollment by an estimated 100,000 children over the phase-in period and reduce the state’s kindergarten costs by $700 million. (That savings from that initially small class of kindergartners would follow as they went on through high school.)
If nothing else, just delaying kindergarten would benefit 4-year-olds struggling to keep up. But child advocates, backed by a shelf-load of policy reports, say unless the displaced 4-year-olds attend a quality preschool, the opportunity to prepare them fully for kindergarten would be wasted. So SB 1381 says half of the savings to the state from moving up the cutoff date would fund state preschool programs.
Since not all of the 100,000 children would be income-eligible for state preschool, Simitian is confident that the savings could fund all of those who are eligible and some of the estimated 87,000 three- and four-year-olds who are already on the state’s preschool waiting list.
The Senate Education Committee liked the concept and passed the bill 8-0 this week. But with the state facing a multi-billion dollar deficit, some legislators may be tempted to seize the full $700 million to plug the hole in the budget.
That’s why Preschool California is urging several amendments. SB 1381 says the intent of the bill is fund preschool. Preschool California would strengthen the language to mandate that commitment. It also would make sure the excluded kindergartners get priority for preschool slots.
Preschool California also wants an alternative approach considered. That is a two-year full-day kindergarten for the September to December group of 4-year-olds. Los Angeles Unified is doing a pilot program in 34 schools. Instead of a budget savings, there would be some additional expense. But the “junior K” program offers the most developmentally and educationally sound approach. The Legislature could initially limit the program to low-income neighborhoods.
In principle, having only 5-year-olds in kindergarten makes sense. But past efforts have run into resistance. Some parents of 4-year-olds will object to another year of child care. Districts won’t like a one year loss of a quarter of their kindergarten teachers and possible reduction of Proposition 98 funding.
That’s why Simitian is proposing phasing in the change over three years, one month at a time. The cutoff date would shift to Nov.1, then Oct. 1, then finally Sept. 1 to minimize the disruption.
5 Comments
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Featured Video |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
Raising the age is an over due fix to postpone K for students who come into class and don’t even know their name, 1-10, any colors, no alphabet knowledge, can’t sit in a chair. They are simply too immature for the demands of kindergarten.
There are standards for preschool. The weak link
for some of these basics are the parents. They need to be informed of the basics needed for K entrance and an interview of the student should be done. If you want excellence you must demand it from not just the teachers. Keep in mind our purpose. Schools are not daycare centers to make the choice of having children easier for parents.
Government needs to stop taking responsibility for the parents’ job.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Charlene:
I think you make some good points about the importance of school readiness. There are, indeed, informal assessments that EC teachers can do to evaluate a child’s developmental levels and point to ways to support entry into K. On some other areas, though, I think you are blaming the victims. Anyone who has spent time in the classroom knows there are parents who are totally derelict; however, they seem few in number. Most parents care deeply for their children and work hard to make them a success. Our problem is society does too little to support many parents and, as a consequnce too little support goes to children. Some fundamentals are health care (perhaps, finally, on the horizon), affordable housing, and living wage jobs. High quality pre-schools and bilingual education are necessities also. Probably grouping students in school more on develpmental readiness makes sense too. Of course that would blow up all the rigid specific grouping by age cohort that’s central to identifying “low achievement” and labeling schools as “failing.” What kind of education policies could we come up with if we looked at the complexities of child development, learning, and teaching and didn’t just reduce solutions to simplistic slogans like “standards and accountability?” What kind indeed? Just think of it.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
As a Kindergarten teacher, I have real concerns about this proposal. Certainly, older children are on average more developmentally ready for many of the motor tasks and some of the academic ones currently required in California’s Kindergarten.
However, children who are not “prepared” for Kindergarten will not magically become so by waiting a year. Too many of my students cannot access PreK, often because despite qualifying for Head Start there are too few openings. My students’ families and caregivers are loving and devoted to their children, but are not always aware of the current state standards or able to teach at home what used to be taught in the schools. In the absence of a robust universal PreK program, this legislation promises only bigger Kindergartners, not more ready ones.
Charlene, how do you propose that parents be informed of Kindergarten standards? I have ten years’ experience teaching in high-needs schools, and I have yet to meet parents who send their young children to my classroom because I am a convenient babysitter. I have found it reasonably straightforward to explain K standards to parents once their children are in my class (although given language barriers, work requirements, etc. this does not mean parents are able to supplement at home – nor do I think that they necessarily should). The kind of pre-entry outreach I understand you to be suggesting would be beneficial, but I am unaware of any successful strategies outside PreK programs.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
For the record, I would have been excluded from the Kindergarten class I entered, and while the standards then were very different, I was also reading fluently upon entry. It doesn’t always come down to age.
I do think LAUSD’s pilot program is a compelling one. I know that Kindergarten teachers, particularly those in half-day programs, struggle with balancing social-emotional development and academic instruction. Working both into a cohesive program is possible but takes collaboration, time and experience, and not all children can master so many skills in 180 days even so.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
SB 1381 is very needed. I have been teaching Kindergarten for over 20 years. My mother tells me that what I currently teach in Kindergarten is what I learned in 1st and 2nd grades. Even 40 years ago the curriculum was difficult for students who entered at 4 years of age. Now, our interventions are almost all young students who should not have entered school at age 4. I am being paid to tutor students who entered school too young. I would rather those students not be in school before they are ready and the money be spent on GATE or VAPA or after school Science Club.
I just read that the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) is against SB 1381 because it will cause teachers to lose jobs. While it is sad that teachers are losing jobs, AFT has taken it’s eyes off the reason for teachers–the students. Continuing to allow students to enter school at age 4 is a disservice to all students and makes teacher’s jobs harder all the way through 12th grade. Those who enter Kindergarten at 4 years of age are at increased risk of falling behind and dropping out of school than those who enter at age 5. If I had my way, the bill would keep shifting the cut off date until it reachs July 1 in 2016 so that even year-round schools have their Kindergarteners starting school at 5 years-old.
Another idea is for all districts to have Preppy/Jr./Developmental Kindergarten for those 4-year-old kIndergarteners and young 5 year-olds who are developmentally young. If SB 1381 does not pass, perhaps you could push for developmental/Preppy/Jr. Kindergartens in all districts with the suggestion from the CDE that all incoming Kindergarteners should have a maturation age of 5.5 years on the first day of school. Current research shows that the students need to be 5.5 years of age entering kindergarten if they are to do well with our California standards.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity