Simitian now favors ‘junior’ kindergarten
Sen. Joseph Simitian has sided with early childhood advocates over budget hawks in the debate over his bill to change the start date for kindergarten. He now has to persuade the Assembly Appropriations Committee to go along with a new version of his bill, creating a “junior” kindergarten for some 4-year-olds.
Simitian’s SB 1381 would move up the start date of kindergarten so that students would have to turn five by Sept. 1, instead of Dec. 2. The effect, excluding kindergarten for 4-year-olds, has long been favored by most educators and child development experts, who say, with substantial evidence, that most 4-year-olds are neither emotionally nor developmentally ready for kindergarten. The hangup has been what to do with the savings from not having to educate a quarter of the kindergarten class that first year.
Simitian, a Democrat from Palo Alto, had proposed splitting the estimated $700 million savings, using half to fund preschool for the excluded 4-year-olds and diverting half to reduce the state’s mammoth budget deficit. But, taking the suggestion of the Assembly Education Committee and child advocates, he now favors a transition kindergarten — “junior kindergarten” – for those children. They would, in effect, attend two years of kindergarten.
Such a program wouldn’t cost the state any money, since the kids would be attending kindergarten anyway. But the state wouldn’t save any money either.
While a fiscal wash, the 2-year kindergarten is the choice of child advocates, who point to the inconsistent quality of many preschool programs. It also should now be backed by the California Teachers Association, since no kindergarten teachers will lose their jobs.
Kindergarten has become more academically demanding since the advent of standards-based education and No Child Left Behind. What once was required of first graders – writing letters, identifying events in a text, counting up to 30 – have been pushed into kindergarten under California standards.
A few districts, including Oak Grove in San Jose, have offered transition kindergarten under the radar for years and sworn by it. This year, Los Angeles Unified was approved to pilot a voluntary two-year kindergarten program for 4-year-olds.
Simitian said this week that he will continue to have the support of some Republicans, as long as the program doesn’t cost the state additional money. The Assembly Appropriations will take up the bill within the next month.
Updated in response to questions raised by readers: The revised language for SB 1381 isn’t out yet, but “junior” kindergarten will be limited strictly to students born between Sept. 1 and Dec. 2. There would be no developmental test to qualify students outside of that age range. That would create potential for an open-ended expense, which won’t fly.
I should have said that the creation of a two-year kindergarten for the fall 4-year-olds would cost money, but the “bill” for the extra year theoretically would not come due until these students are seniors in high school, 14 years from now. Simitian plans to phase in transitional kindergarten over three years, one birthday month at a time, and there will be an opt-out for parents who sill want their 4-year-olds to be in regular kindergarten. For an updated information sheet on the bill, see here
11 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.
 |
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 ..
Would this early kindergarten be ONLY for 4year-old kids born between September and December? Finances aside, it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Some people are going to pay the cost of this transition. In this version it’s the younger children who have to compete with older kids who were given an extra year of education. Maybe that extra year should be given to the youngest children.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Right now though, Paul, it’s the younger kids whose parents can’t access preschool and must get their children into a school program who are paying the cost.
If we accept the rationale of the change in age deadlines – that school readiness is most closely associated with age, not experience – then the Jr. K program works.
My understanding of these programs in actual use is that the two-year K model ends up taking into account both calendar age and skill level.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The way I read the post is that the Junior-K program lasts only one year to help aid the transition. Funding a permanent Junior-K program would definitely increase costs.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I politely disagree with the notion that school is about kids “competing” with each other. Children should be learning cooperatively, not pitted against each other.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I’d favor pre-kindergarten for disadvantaged children (low-income, not fluent in English) who are one year away from kindergarten eligibility. Funding pre-K for all kids would be too expensive. In fact, funding pre-K for poor kids may be more than California can handle. If so, there’s evidence that a summer kindergarten prep class helps disadvantaged kids get off to a good start.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline, well maybe I’m stretching a bit in assuming that the Jr. K program actually has long term benefits, but there is limited admission to CA’s publicly funded system of colleges.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
In response to John’s update. That proposal really makes no sense, why would a kid born in September get an extra year of school vs. a kid born in August?
Also, if it’s phased in one month at a time, does it mean than on Year one, juniorK would be only for kids born in December?
As a result, wouldn’t the cohorts be minuscule per school? Districts could ill afford too small classrooms.
Joanne’s idea seems much more sensible. Use limited funds in a much fairer way and help the kids who need it most.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
It’s true that students “compete” in college admissions and also in classes that are graded on the curve. … Of course regarding any type of kindergarten prep, if it’s voluntary, the kids who need it the least will get it and the kids who need it the most won’t.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
What used to be taught in second grade is now taught in first, and what was once taught in first grade is now taught in Kindergarten, and yet children are not born a full year smarter, and they do not develop faster than when you and I were born. So, something has to give. Two years to go through Kindergarten might help.
You cannot expect a 4 year old to sit and think the way we do expect them to do now in Kindergarten, it is developmentally inappropriate, even ludicrous.
Unless you simply want to teach them failure and inadequacy. In that case, we’re right on track!!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I am employed for Gilroy Unified School District, as a Pre-K teacher. We have five state pre-school classes that serve 3-4 year old children. My class is a Power of Pre-school class that serves 3-4 year olds. The state pre-schools primarily serve low income children. My program is based on a universal pre-school model for all 4 year old children. It is not income based. Last year a large percentage of my class were those children who turned five in January. They did exceptionally well and were ready for kindergarten.
My question is…Why reinvent the wheel? The state already has state pre-schools in place. Why not expand services to older four year olds, through the state pre-schools? Our program is a half day program. It is a developmentally appropriate program, that uses a Pre-K Houghton Mifflin curriculum, for language development. Twenty children come at 8:00- 11:00 and twenty children come from 12:00-3:00. All of the teacher’s either have a bachelor’s degree in child development or elementary ed, with child development coursework. Most of our teaching assistants have an AA degree. Maybe we are the exception, rather than the rule. To make this program work, the salaries paid to pre-school teachers have to match their educational level and years of experience. If the educational level is comparable to elementary teachers, then the pay scale should also be comparable.
Susan
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity