Quest for best could kill good kindergarten bill
For two decades, bills to exclude 4-year-olds from kindergarten have foundered in the Legislature, even though child advocates and kindergarten teachers all but universally agree that children that young don’t belong in their classes.
The latest effort, Sen. Joe Simitian’s SB 1381, has passed the Senate and is halfway home. Whether it ultimately becomes law will depend on whether Simitian, a Democrat from Palo Alto, can hold the middle ground on what to do with savings generated by bill.
SB 1381 would require that students starting kindergarten must turn five by Sept. 1 of the school year, instead of Dec. 2, the current deadline. Moving up the start date by three months would reduce enrollment by an estimated 100,000 children – one quarter of kindergartners for that year – and save as much as $700 million, depending whether the change is made in one year or, as Simitian proposes, is phased in over three years, with less initial savings.
There’s little dispute that most 4-year-olds aren’t developmentally ready for kindergarten. What’s defeated past bills are disagreements on what to do with the money. The savings from a smaller group of kindergartners one year would continue as the children progressed through the next 12 years of school.
Simitian’s compromise is to split the savings, with half applied to reduce a $19 billion state budget deficit and half committed as additional spending for state-funded preschool. The Legislative Analyst projects there would be enough money to serve 29,000 of the 4-year-olds whose kindergarten would be delayed and whose family incomes qualify for the state program, plus an additional 59,000 three- and four-year olds who are currently on the state preschool wait list.
But the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office and fiscal conservatives want to use the full $700 million to reduce the deficit, while early childhood advocates either want all of the money going to expand preschool or, as a more expensive alternative, to establish a two-year kindergarten program for the September-November birthday kids. A few school districts are quietly doing this already, and receiving regular state funding for the program.
While “wholeheartedly” supporting the change in kindergarten age, the California Teachers Association is among those who opposing the bill because it would not guarantee “quality preschool” for all children displaced by the date change. In its opposition letter, the CTA says “budget cuts should not be made on the backs of children.” (Simitian said it was a request to change the start date, signed by nearly 300 teachers, that led him to file the bill in the first place.)
A “junior kindergarten” for 4-year-olds, led by certificated teachers, is appealing. But now, amid the state’s worst funding crisis is not the time to push for a new program with added state costs.
California is one of only four states that allow 4-year-olds in kindergarten. (Even if SB 1381 passes, parents with advanced 4-year-olds could petition their school boards to let their children in kindergarten.) Other states recognize that children that young will be more emotionally ready and do academically better by waiting a year. With some districts now packing 30 kindergartners to a class because of budget cuts, the difficulties of accommodating 4-year-olds have become more acute.
Simitian’s bill would funnel hundreds of millions of new dollars to preschool and set an educationally sound start date for kindergarten. It’s an opportunity that shouldn’t slip by.
6 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 ..
I’m no whiz at budgets, but don’t the savings in this bill come from reductions in ADA? Are districts expected to cut staff substantially for this cohort (or cohorts, if phased)? How does that work out in 9 years when these students enter high school, where students across grades take the same courses? There will a substantial dip in enrollment & ADA funds, but still a need to offer a full breadth of course offerings. Seems like a master schedule nightmare waiting to happen — and possibly another squeeze on school district budgets where funds are reduced to a greater degree than need. Am I missing something?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
John You may wish to check how much this ploy will cost Community Colleges. Remember Proposition 98 covers both K-12 and Community Colleges. Each loss of K-12 ADA cuts the full Guarantee. Community College enrollment does not effect the Guarantee. So Community Colleges get wacked and they don’t even have Kindergarten. John Mockler
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The largest component of school funding in California is the Proposition 98 guarantee, a funding formula for K through community colleges that is linked to two factors: current and future economic conditions, and demographic enrollment trends of school-age children in the California. K-12 education typically receives around 90 percent of total Proposition 98 funding, with the rest going to Community Colleges.
SB 1381 removes enrollments (and thus ADA) from the formula, lowering the overall final calculation for school and community college funding.
Based on the funding formula, average daily attendance (ADA) dictates the amount of funds a school district will receive, which ultimately helps school districts decide in making financial and programmatic plans. Therefore, future projections of student enrollment, along with economic trends, play a critical factor in education finance – especially in times of budget shortfalls.
Using Department of Finance enrollment projections, in the third year of implementation of SB 1381, the Proposition 98 calculation for schools will have to be adjusted downward by an enrollment of 119,000 students, translating into an ADA loss of about 98% of that number. This loss will of funding will mean the loss of a commensurate number of high quality early education teaching positions that could be used as the beginning of a two year kindergarten program that would address the needs of 4 year olds. How many high quality teaching positions would be eliminated? More than 6,000 teaching positions at a 20 to one ratio. These are high quality early education teachers have at least BA degree with almost all of them having a BA and a 5th year of early education training or Masters Degree.
This negative adjustment causes less money for education from Proposition 98 calculation not only for K-12, but for Community Colleges.
Under current law, school districts take the higher of current year or prior-year ADA if they are declining in ADA. This gives them a one-year “buffer” to adjust spending and programs when they experience declining enrollment. SB 1381 removes this buffer for the purposes of changing the date of Kindergarten enrollment.
Since districts are in various stages of growth and declining enrollment, and thus ADA, SB 1381 will have even more severe consequences at the local level depending upon a district’s particular demographics.
Schools already have classrooms, furniture, playgrounds, and the basics for a two year Kindergarten. Why not use them for a good purpose?
Love the age policy, but please keep the funding with our schools.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Couldn’t this add another year of special education services? If a child is enrolled in an SE preschool and has a birthday after the cutoff, he would remain in that placement for one more year. Carrying this forward, he would graduate when he is one year older, thus requiring an extra year of SE services. What would this cost be? Will a district receive extra SE funding?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Good point. It’s my understanding that amendments will be written to hold school districts harmless, ensuring that they would continue to receive all of funding for special ed since districts must provide the services, starting in age three, regardless of whether the child is in kindergarten.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The problem I have – as a Kindergarten teacher – is that Simitan’s bill will have a limited impact on the students who don’t get preschool or any structured experience (KinderTots, etc.) before starting school. Those students comprise about 80% of my class this year. Head Start and other “Preschool for All” programs just don’t have enough seats for all eligible students.
Those students who don’t receive preschool and have Fall birthdays are not going to be more ready simply because they are older. They may have had some gross and fine motor development – but these are developed through use and experience, not through aging alone, so the growth may be slight or nonexistent.
These students typically represent our worst-served communities, and Simitan’s bill continues to grow the opportunity gap. If it’s not the time for another costly program, does it have to be the time for further cuts to poor children?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity