Following is an article that I recently wrote for publication in the NC Black Leadership Caucus' monthly newsletter. Its focus is on NC politics; however, I suspect that this issue isn't limited to NC.
If North Carolina state legislators have their way, more than 15,000 children who turn five between September 1 and October 16 in 2009 will not be eligible to enroll in the state kindergarten program. House Bill 150 (H150) and an identical Senate Bill 751 (S751), propose to change the cut off date for initial school enrollment in kindergarten from October 16 to August 31, effective fiscal year 2009-2010.
Under the current law, as long as a child will be five by October 16, that child may enter kindergarten in August of the school year in which the child turned five. A child whose fifth birthday is as late as October 16 may enroll in a state funded program when school begins in August prior to the child reaching age five in October. The proposed bills, both entitled Every Child Ready to Learn, would not allow a child to enroll in August of that school year if he or she will not be five by August 31. If this legislation passes, a child who turns five after August 31, 2009 will have to wait until the school year beginning in August 2010 to enroll in a state funded kindergarten program. The fiscal note accompanying H150 estimates that the change would result in 15,360 fewer children statewide beginning kindergarten in August 2009
Based on the long title of H150 and S751, AN ACT for modifying the school admission requirements to ensure that every child is ready to enter kindergarten and thereby reduce student dropout rates in later grades, both bills are being presented as having the potential to address some of the troubles that currently beset public education in North Carolina--an unacceptable dropout rate and school readiness.
However, there is insufficient evidence to conclusively support that delaying initial enrollment in school will decrease the dropout rate in the future. However, there is research that suggests that low income children are disadvantaged by lack of a quality pre-school experience and that the disadvantage magnifies as they age, leading to higher dropout rates. A student that is older than his or her peers in that grade level is more likely to become a dropout statistic. The student who is six when beginning K or turns six within the first two months of beginning K, will reach the current legal dropout age of 16 nearly a full year before his or her peers.
The other stated purpose of these bills is to make certain children are ready to learn when they begin school. Unfortunately, there is no solid scientifically based research that conclusively supports the notion that a six year old is automatically more ready to learn than the same child was one year earlier without some intervening experiences designed to prepare the child to be ready to learn. In other words, just hanging around the house another year does not correlate with improved academic readiness for children who are already at-risk of academic failure.
A 2006 study on the impact of delaying initial entry into school, concludes that positive gains in achievement shown in students who are older when they begin school are more likely connected to their experiences prior to beginning school than any effect from delaying kindergarten for a year. In other words, middle class and higher children who have educational experiences prior to entering kindergarten benefit from the delay but no such benefit is seen for lower income children. (http://www.ilir.uiuc.edu/lubotsky/Elder%20Lubotsky%20June%202006.pdf)
This change will most seriously impact children from lower income and working class families who are unable to afford private day care or pre-school, depriving them of any significant formal educational experience for as much as an additional school year. Under current law, the mandatory school age is seven; parents already have the option to choose not to send their child to kindergarten when he/she turns five. Some parents choose not to do so based on their beliefs as to the physical and emotional maturity of their child. The proposed change will only force parents who do not have options for providing a solid pre-school experience for their children to delay access to education for their children.
In addition, it is essential to weigh the economic costs to families of the proposed change on low-income and working class parents. They will have an extra year of child care expenses while waiting for their child to reach school age.
According to the fiscal note attached to H150, the proposed bills will have an economic benefit to state and local government. Assuming all factors remain constant regarding average daily membership, the fiscal note anticipates reduced state General Fund expenditures and reduced county government expenditures in public school spending for a period of twelve years beginning with implementation of the bill in 2009-10 fiscal year. (http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/FiscalNotes/House/PDF/HFN0150v1.pdf)
There is an additional bill, House Bill 130 that proposes an earlier cut off date of June 16 and would be effective for the 2008-09 school year. There currently is no Senate equivalent for this bill.
6 comments:
Hugs Sheria
you must be a Mind reader or we have some level of connection , I been so bummed out about my grandson who will be 5 Oct 8th , we went to register him for school (public)and they told me and my daughter No sorry he can not start this year because he does not turn five before Sept 30th , so there for he cant start here it is a week difference I almost felt like starting a big deal over this but my son is in this school so I didnt want to start any problems with the school, In New York he would of been in school by 4 they have a pre-k head start there. Here in Florida they have nothing except if your well to do then you can pay for school which I think is unfair, well any ways I have missed you
have a great day
Hugs Jo
I call it a conundrum in that Missouri is struggling with the same things. What I am seeing, like you've mentioned, is that low income students are put at even more risk. The operative class of law makers seem to have their collective heads in the sand as they are adjusting or cutting Head Start programs but at he same time claiming to relive the public school system of children who aren't ready to start school as yet. Let me see here...they say we have too many children not ready to attend school because they are not up to par with more affluent children who have access to pre kindergarden classes....so we cut the Head Start program making sure even more children are not ready. Hmmm...scratching my head. Go figure. What did I miss in this equation.
Timely article.
I think more Pre-K is needed rather than changing the time by which a child turns five to enter Kinder. It is very true that many kids begin school totally unprepared. They have no prior experiences with books, with someone reading to them, with eating properly at the table, hygiene, even speaking... so another year in a home where that same child has not been prepared for reading and writing is not going to increase his chances of being ready to learn in a kindergarten classroom. My school has a pre-K... the kids learn how to take turns, sit at a desk, stand in line, hold and write with a pencil, they listen to stories, play in centers, learn how to hold their spoons when eating and to wash their hands after they go to the bathroom, and so many more things that many kids get at home those first few years prior to beginning school. Unless people who become parents can teach their kids, we are always going to have to deal with students in the classroom who start behind, lag behind, and drop out. I believe in giving them all a fair start. What a child learns before he starts kindergarten is a more accurate basis for determining kindergarten readiness than his physical age/maturity. So either a kid has to be enrolled in a pre-K program, or the parents have to teach their children the basics (counting, colors, naming the letters of the alphabet, how to hold and 'read' a book, how to write letters and numbers, etc). Grrrr to those legislators!!!!! Your article is well written, Sheria, and makes a significant point. bea
I still drop by from time to time. I just haven't commented for a while. Nice intro to your present tune.
http://journals.aol.co.uk/acoward15/andy-the-bastard
I've spent a fair bit of time thinking over this myself from my wee years even. I'm a November child, and at the time, Maryland allowed children who'd turn 5 by the end of the calendar year, to enroll. I was one of thee very youngest in my class by the time I graduated high school. In the 1990's it's altered, every year, the child must meet the age requirements one month earlier. This is the first I've heard proof that children of lower income families, with no other means of obtaining academics, are not aided by this, and I imagine, hurt by it. SO much learning can be had between "2-5," brain development, everything. I always heard that when my child was a preschooler, and I still believe that today. Seems NC is trying to come in line with what many other states are doing. I don't know that it's a good thing.
I just want to say that your article has given me fresh insight to something I have been thinking about for quite a while and looking at in a totally different way. It never occurred to me how changing the school start date would affect children and families from low income backgrounds. It is a great point, but one which really illustrates to me the need for more quality state-sponsored preschool programs.
I do think research I've read through the years indicates that children who start preschool at age 4 generally have a harder time - really from both a social and emotional standpoint - which is something that only corrects with age - and from a curricular standpoint - as kindergarten today is much more "demanding" than it was in previous generations.
In an ideal world there would be a solution that addresses these competing concerns and has ALL children entering kindergarten ready to learn and not just those who can afford to pay for preschool out of pocket.
Thanks again for the eye-opener.
Post a Comment