California peeps: Mandatory kindergarten looms ahead...

[Ellie]

I have not heard anything about it, but 'tis true.

 

AB-1772--Lowers compulsory school age to 5

[Liz CA]

I have not heard anything about it, but 'tis true.

 

AB-1772--Lowers compulsory school age to 5

 

There is no rest for the wicked...

[Miss Peregrine]

:/

[elise1mds]

*shrug* We've had mandatory full-day K here in Oklahoma for a few years now. Since most families were sending their kids to school as early as they could do so anyway, it didn't change much other than cut child-care costs and increase the number of teachers needed (not that the state was/is okay with funding that).

[Dmmetler]

If it works like TN, K is mandatory, but kids don't have to be in school until they're 7. So, what's happened is that most kids in middle class and above families don't actually start school until age 6, K is effectively taught as 1st grade (with the Kindergarten programs normally done in private preschools and daycares), and 12th grade is then used for enrichment classes, AP, and dual enrollment to beef up the college applications. Cutoffs keep getting pushed back earlier and earlier because there are always some parents who didn't get the memo (or couldn't afford an extra year of daycare) and horror of horrors, put their 5 yr old in K, and the poor babies just can't keep up with what is demanded of them.

[Hot Lava Mama]

I think it's on hold.

 

Yuck. Can't those #%^$(*&% busy bodies find somebody else to "nanny"!

 

Stupid, stupid California congressmen. They are running our state into the ground, and THIS is what they are concerned about!!!!

 

Geez!

Hot Lava Mama

[Hen]

the crazy part is that California has been run into the ground, they are cutting budgets everywhere and now they want to add a bunch of children into the schools early. Crazy and irresponsible. :glare:

[Crimson Wife]

*shrug* We've had mandatory full-day K here in Oklahoma for a few years now. Since most families were sending their kids to school as early as they could do so anyway, it didn't change much other than cut child-care costs and increase the number of teachers needed (not that the state was/is okay with funding that).

 

The problem in CA with mandatory K is that private schools (including one family private homeschools) face much stricter regulations if they offer K rather than starting in 1st. They would be subject to the same regulations as daycares rather than the much less onerous elementary school ones. That's why all the statewide HS groups tell families who HS under the private school exemption to not include K children in their state paperwork.

[Ellie]

If it works like TN, K is mandatory, but kids don't have to be in school until they're 7. So, what's happened is that most kids in middle class and above families don't actually start school until age 6, K is effectively taught as 1st grade (with the Kindergarten programs normally done in private preschools and daycares), and 12th grade is then used for enrichment classes, AP, and dual enrollment to beef up the college applications. Cutoffs keep getting pushed back earlier and earlier because there are always some parents who didn't get the memo (or couldn't afford an extra year of daycare) and horror of horrors, put their 5 yr old in K, and the poor babies just can't keep up with what is demanded of them.

In California, children who are 6 by December 2 must be enrolled in school. the law would change that to 5 by December 2.

[calimom04]

well dd was 4 when she started k so I guess I wouldn't mind. BUT I dont think its their business to tell us when our kids are ready to go to school.

[LucyStoner]

It is a bill still in committee. Not a reality yet. Untold numbers of bills die in committee or on the floor. Now that it is in appropriations, the cost impact will be the focus. That will sway some votes or drop it down the priority list for going to the floor. In short, this is not a done deal and there is still time for CA residents to make their voices heard on this issue.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

the crazy part is that California has been run into the ground, they are cutting budgets everywhere and now they want to add a bunch of children into the schools early. Crazy and irresponsible. :glare:

 

:iagree: I guess homeschoolers will have to file for kindergarten then, too?

[AndyJoy]

What is the motivation for this? I have never personally met anyone whose 5 or 6 year old was not in kindergarten, even when I lived in Idaho where the compulsory age was 7. In my experience, most 3 and 4 year olds are already in preschool and parents can't wait for them to transition to free kindergarten. Who is this going to benefit? Is it just a way to make school "free" at a younger age?

 

Will this mean that parents won't be allowed to delay entry for their 5-year-old who barely makes the birthday cutoff? Because that would be stupid IMO. If this passes I might breathe a sigh of relief that DS misses the Sept. cutoff to which CA is moving.

[LillyMama]

It is a bill still in committee. Not a reality yet. Untold numbers of bills die in committee or on the floor. Now that it is in appropriations, the cost impact will be the focus. That will sway some votes or drop it down the priority list for going to the floor. In short, this is not a done deal and there is still time for CA residents to make their voices heard on this issue.

 

But, and PLEASE feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the California bill system set up that the legality of an issue is voted on as a separate bill from the actual budget for it? For example, if I understand correctly, the spec ed requirements (what all kids with IEPs are required to have access to) can be passed by legislators in May but then the tax increases to fund those measures can be voted down by the populace in November. I THINK that is how my sister described to me why she, as an inclusion teacher, is always on the verge of being sued for not having the resources to follow the laws. Not that it's in her control, as the district determines which classes and students get aides, and it's usually the ones that just yell the loudest. But yeah, she's the person whose name is at the top of the suit when the parents, rightfully, sue for what they're legally required to have. I was born and raised in CA, but we're definitely relieved to have moved away.

[LillyMama]

What is the motivation for this? I have never personally met anyone whose 5 or 6 year old was not in kindergarten, even when I lived in Idaho where the compulsory age was 7. In my experience, most 3 and 4 year olds are already in preschool and parents can't wait for them to transition to free kindergarten. Who is this going to benefit? Is it just a way to make school "free" at a younger age?

 

Will this mean that parents won't be allowed to delay entry for their 5-year-old who barely makes the birthday cutoff? Because that would be stupid IMO. If this passes I might breathe a sigh of relief that DS misses the Sept. cutoff to which CA is moving.

 

It's very common, here in the suburbs of Denver, for middle class and upper parents to hold their boys from starting K until they are at least 6. Our school district actually recommends that boys not 5 by May before the school year starts, wait until the next year. In other words, they don't want any boys under 5.5 and many boys end K at 7.

 

The people I know who politically support these bills point to the lower income peoples who do not use pre-schools but instead day cares or families. They feel that having the wealthy children having access to preschool gives them a distinct advantage over lower income kids who stay with Grandma and watch TV all day. So K teachers get some new students who can read fluently and some students who've never even seen the alphabet before. Because these discrepancies tend to fall along wealth lines, it's seen as a class and poverty issue. It's intended to help kids from lower income families not start so far behind. Some places, like Chicago, are already talking about mandatory pre-school to level the playing field.

[MyLittleWonders]

The problem in CA with mandatory K is that private schools (including one family private homeschools) face much stricter regulations if they offer K rather than starting in 1st. They would be subject to the same regulations as daycares rather than the much less onerous elementary school ones. That's why all the statewide HS groups tell families who HS under the private school exemption to not include K children in their state paperwork.

 

Can you give more information about this? I have read over and over about not reporting our Kers on our affidavits, but never found the reason why. I'm curious what it would look like for those of us who file independently rather than through a charter or such.

[AndyJoy]

It's very common, here in the suburbs of Denver, for middle class and upper parents to hold their boys from starting K until they are at least 6. Our school district actually recommends that boys not 5 by May before the school year starts, wait until the next year. In other words, they don't want any boys under 5.5 and many boys end K at 7.

 

The people I know who politically support these bills point to the lower income peoples who do not use pre-schools but instead day cares or families. They feel that having the wealthy children having access to preschool gives them a distinct advantage over lower income kids who stay with Grandma and watch TV all day. So K teachers get some new students who can read fluently and some students who've never even seen the alphabet before. Because these discrepancies tend to fall along wealth lines, it's seen as a class and poverty issue. It's intended to help kids from lower income families not start so far behind. Some places, like Chicago, are already talking about mandatory pre-school to level the playing field.

 

Irksome. Funding free pre-school for all is one thing--requiring it is insane IMO. Around here low income families are clamoring to get their kids into Head Start, the free PS pre-school, and the very inexpensive city pre-school program. These programs fill up very quickly. Why pay for daycare if your kid can get free school? I doubt many people around here are intentionally choosing low-quality daycare or even family over these options.

 

Is mandatory K supposed to be the slippery slope to mandatory pre-K? Because mandatory K is not going to stop kids from having a non-enriched early childhood. I would love to see if there are statistics showing that a large percentage of 5-year-olds aren't in school already!

 

Or is is just that a compulsory age of 5 would keep higher income parents from having their kids wait, thus leveling the playing field by tripping those who are doing well.

Edited June 2, 2012 by AndyJoy

[LucyStoner]

But, and PLEASE feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the California bill system set up that the legality of an issue is voted on as a separate bill from the actual budget for it? For example, if I understand correctly, the spec ed requirements (what all kids with IEPs are required to have access to) can be passed by legislators in May but then the tax increases to fund those measures can be voted down by the populace in November. I THINK that is how my sister described to me why she, as an inclusion teacher, is always on the verge of being sued for not having the resources to follow the laws. Not that it's in her control, as the district determines which classes and students get aides, and it's usually the ones that just yell the loudest. But yeah, she's the person whose name is at the top of the suit when the parents, rightfully, sue for what they're legally required to have. I was born and raised in CA, but we're definitely relieved to have moved away.

 

I have no idea if CA has voter approval for all expenditure bills. That could get ugly fast. I think it what is different about CA is that most states send bills through one committee with a fiscal note or appropriations opinion and then it goes to the floor (and then to the other side of the boby.) In CA it has to pass the committee on that topic first and then go to a whole separate committee for appropriations. That would drag it out for sure and may be what your sister was telling you about. Plus many states have voter approvals for tax increases. In my state we have a part-time citizen's legislature so the inner workings of the full-time, full throttle CA system elude me. They have a bicameral legislative body. So like most states, as well as the federal government, as we all know, a bill has to go through committee in its house of origin, be passed by that body and then has to go through the entire process again in the other body (it is assembly and senate for CA I think). Then the differences between the Senate and Assembly have to be worked out and then the Governor can choose to sign it or not. So this bill is about 6 or so time consuming steps away from being on the Governor's desk.

Edited June 2, 2012 by kijipt

[Spy Car]

I wish it would pass into law. Not that I think it will in this economic climate. But the 10% of students who don't attend kindergarten are highly likely to fail a grade in elementary school. Children who don't attend kindergarten start out way behind.

 

Early education is crucial.

 

Bill (who smells a HSLDA scare-tactic "alert" in motion)

[LibraryLover]

Mandatory means it has to be offered; it does not mean children must attend. We have 'mandatory kindergarten', but children do not need to be ' accounted for' school until age 7. Hsers don't have submit a Letter of Intent until then. It's a funding issue.

[LibraryLover]

I wish it would pass into law. Not that I think it will in this economic climate. But the 10% of students who don't attend kindergarten are highly likely to fail a grade in elementary school. Children who don't attend kindergarten start out way behind.

 

Early education is crucial.

 

Bill (who smells a HSLDA scare-tactic "alert" in motion)

 

Keep calm and carry on. This isn't about forcing children to attend school if parents choose to hs. Much ado about dank. The right to hs in CA has not changed. Hsing is legal in all 50 states. I don't see any pending legislation in CA that challenges hsing rights.

Edited June 2, 2012 by LibraryLover

[LillyMama]

But the 10% of students who don't attend kindergarten are highly likely to fail a grade in elementary school. Children who don't attend kindergarten start out way behind.

 

Early education is crucial.

 

Bill (who smells a HSLDA scare-tactic "alert" in motion)

 

:iagree:

 

Learning styles, educational identity, all of those things are determined quite young. It takes kids a long time to get over being seen as less smart as their peers, and some never do. Sure, some people are just smarter than others, but the discrepancies we're seeing are not due to intelligence but rather to exposure and opportunity. And a five year old doesn't know enough to say, "Hey, Sally is better at reading because she got to go to preschool and I can be just as good, too." No, instead, they decide they are dumb and they underperform. It's very very sad.

 

That being said- I'm not sure I agree the bill should pass. I would vote for it here in Colorado, where the legislature and populace seem to be a bit more responsible. In California, frankly, they cannot afford it.

[AndyJoy]

Mandatory means it has to be offered; it does not mean children must attend. We have 'mandatory kindergarten', but children do not need to be ' accounted for' school until age 7. Hsers don't have submit a Letter of Intent until then. It's a funding issue.

Ah, I see now it is mandatory K, not explicitly lowering the compulsory age to 5. This is an important distinction. So you can still hold your kid out until 6 but he has to do K before 1, which is most people's plan anyway. They're not keeping the kid home to do a better job of K themselves--they don't think their kid is ready for K for another year.

[Spy Car]

Keep calm and carry on. This isn't about forcing children to attend school if parents choose to hs. Much ado about dank. The right to hs in CA has not changed. Hsing is legal in all 50 states. I don't see any pending legislation in CA that challenges hsing rights.

 

It is HSDLA spreading misinformation (read:lies) again? Or am I wrong?

 

Bill

[Crimson Wife]

It isn't just HSLDA who is concerned about the impact of this proposed bill on those families who HS under the private school exemption. There is a woman in one of the local support groups to which I belong who is chair of HSC's legal team. FWIW, she is politically liberal and Jewish and she's very concerned about this proposed bill. You can read her analysis of it here.

 

If single-family private homeschools were exempt from the regulations for classroom-based private kindergartens/nursery schools/daycares, then it would be no big deal to simply file the PSA a year earlier. But under the current rules, it would add a lot more red tape and restrictions for HS families who choose the PSA route. That's why homeschoolers should oppose this bill.

[Amber in SJ]

The ironic part is CA does not have the $$ to add more kids to schools. Many years ago (when I was teaching in the stone age) CA passed a law stating that in grades K-3 there could be no more than 20 students in each class. Sounds great, right? In fact it merely gave the schools a reason to lay off all the teacher's aides. Before the law was passed classrooms always had a teacher and an aide, sometime two in each class of 30 students.

 

Here we are with many schools breaking the 20 student law and no aides in the classroom. Classrooms with 30+ students.

 

The public school district where I live is facing a crisis. Currently all parents with kinder age kids received a letter saying that there would be two all day kindergarten classes with two teachers and sixty students in each class. Yes! Sixty 5 yos and two adults. Does that sound like a good idea to anyone? The note went on to say that everyday one teacher would be taking the lowest reading group of 15 kids off for more reading instruction. They made this sound like a positive. No mention is made of the fact that the other teacher would be left with 45 kinders. How is anyone supposed to learn to read in that situation?

 

This is why I find it incredible that anyone would think it is a good idea to add more kids to the classroom.

 

I mean, really? Get those bad parents who think they can teach their kids better at home & don't send their children to all day school at 5.

 

I think even if all I taught was nosepicking all day it would be better than what they would be learning in 60 child, Lord of the Flies-esque, social experiment.

 

:rant:

 

 

Ok, whew! rant over.

 

The weather is lovely here in California.

 

Amber in SJ

[ktgrok]

I wish it would pass into law. Not that I think it will in this economic climate. But the 10% of students who don't attend kindergarten are highly likely to fail a grade in elementary school. Children who don't attend kindergarten start out way behind.

 

Early education is crucial.

 

Bill (who smells a HSLDA scare-tactic "alert" in motion)

 

agreed, but given that the cut off is in December, moving the mandatory age to 5 would mean LOTS of 4 year old starting kindy. Bad idea for a lot of them. fine, make kindy mandatory, but leave the cut off age where it is, so people can start them in kindy when they want.

[DawnM]

I don't think it is a big deal. I don't' know of anyone who plans to send their children to school who doesn't send them in K.

 

Dawn

[K&Rs Mom]

I wish it would pass into law. Not that I think it will in this economic climate. But the 10% of students who don't attend kindergarten are highly likely to fail a grade in elementary school. Children who don't attend kindergarten start out way behind.

 

I think this is a correlation/causation thing. The same reason they didn't attend K is likely the reason they are behind, and will make it harder to keep up no matter when they start going to that special building. So lowering the mandatory age to 3 still wouldn't help those kids, because something else is missing in their lives. There are always going to be some at an academic disadvantage, just as there are always some at an economic disadvantage or with other challenges.

[Library Momma]

It's very common, here in the suburbs of Denver, for middle class and upper parents to hold their boys from starting K until they are at least 6. Our school district actually recommends that boys not 5 by May before the school year starts, wait until the next year. In other words, they don't want any boys under 5.5 and many boys end K at 7.

 

The people I know who politically support these bills point to the lower income peoples who do not use pre-schools but instead day cares or families. They feel that having the wealthy children having access to preschool gives them a distinct advantage over lower income kids who stay with Grandma and watch TV all day. So K teachers get some new students who can read fluently and some students who've never even seen the alphabet before. Because these discrepancies tend to fall along wealth lines, it's seen as a class and poverty issue. It's intended to help kids from lower income families not start so far behind. Some places, like Chicago, are already talking about mandatory pre-school to level the playing field.

 

Where I live the cutoff for Kindergarten is the end of the year so kids with Sept to Dec birthdays are 4. It was popular about 10 years ago for people to hold kids back a year and start them later but about 5 years ago it started falling out of favor. Kindergarten is aimed at those 4/5 year olds and the kids that were turning 6 were finding themselves essentially with "babies" and becoming frustrated. Now you really only see kids who are assessed as not ready academically for K being held a year.

[Stacy in NJ]

In California, children who are 6 by December 2 must be enrolled in school. the law would change that to 5 by December 2.

 

In Jersey it's common for middle and affluent class parents to hold back their youngish kid a year to provide a competitive sport or academic advantage over their peers.

 

This law (if applied in Jersery) would force parents to enroll if they wanted free public education.

[*Lulu*]

I think this is a correlation/causation thing. The same reason they didn't attend K is likely the reason they are behind, and will make it harder to keep up no matter when they start going to that special building. So lowering the mandatory age to 3 still wouldn't help those kids, because something else is missing in their lives. There are always going to be some at an academic disadvantage, just as there are always some at an economic disadvantage or with other challenges.

 

There was a study I saw where they showed that children who had attended pre-k programs were ahead in k/1st but had identical scores as the non-pre-k crowd by 2nd/3rd grade.* I do wonder what the long term impact really is for those that attend early education programs. Is it simply a case of those with rich home environments will eventually rise to the top, those without will eventually be pulled down, and all our good intentions and programs are just spitting into the wind for the good they do? (I am saying this in a very general statiscal way, I know that there are stories on either side of the equation that disprove that idea.)

 

 

 

*Now this was maybe 5 years ago, and I cannot remember what they were using for measuring abilities/performance. I have to go strong arm a nine year old over a half finished assignment, but I will try to find and link the study later.

 

 

ETA- I think I found the study. It was from 2005 acctually, but it only looked at head start students' performance. I cannot figure out how to link it on my iPad, but it was the first story when I googled head start limited effects.

Edited June 2, 2012 by BLA5

[SweetPea]

It's very common, here in the suburbs of Denver, for middle class and upper parents to hold their boys from starting K until they are at least 6. Our school district actually recommends that boys not 5 by May before the school year starts, wait until the next year. In other words, they don't want any boys under 5.5 and many boys end K at 7.

 

The people I know who politically support these bills point to the lower income peoples who do not use pre-schools but instead day cares or families. They feel that having the wealthy children having access to preschool gives them a distinct advantage over lower income kids who stay with Grandma and watch TV all day. So K teachers get some new students who can read fluently and some students who've never even seen the alphabet before. Because these discrepancies tend to fall along wealth lines, it's seen as a class and poverty issue. It's intended to help kids from lower income families not start so far behind. Some places, like Chicago, are already talking about mandatory pre-school to level the playing field.

 

 

When we lived in Ohio, this too was true for our school district. The academic expectations where very high and even higher in high school. Having boys start at 6 was also common for my school district growing up in Nebraska and Tennessee. Granted both high schools I attended had 98% go to college and a large percentage are now doctors, lawyers or have PhDs.

[Nart]

The actual amended bill is here

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1751-1800/ab_1772_bill_20120411_amended_asm_v97.html

 

It now says a child must spend a year in kindergarten before moving on to first grade starting in the 2014-2015 school year. That same year the cut-off for kindergarten will be moved back to Sept. 1 so a child must turn five on or before Sept. 1 to start kindergarten.

I work in a low performing, low socio-economic school (all the kids are on free /reduced lunch). There are plenty of parents who register their kids for kindergarten midway through the year for various reasons. Not one has said they were working with them. These kids are really behind by the end of kindergarten. These are not kids who are transferring schools or coming from private schools. If we recommend retention the parent has to sign a paper agreeing. Some parents refuse so their children go on to first grade and fall further behind.

[Farrar]

That's the law here, though they've tried to change it to even younger and make preK mandatory. They didn't have the funds for it though and it failed.

 

I'm of two minds. On the one hand, I think it's good that they create enough slots for every kid - even for the preK programs here, they should have enough slots and they don't. It's lottery to get in. And in many places, red shirting is protected - I know in Maryland, to hold your child back all you have to do is fill out a form.

 

On the other hand, it seems to increase the push for earlier and earlier academics in our country. And that I have a problem with.

[Annie Laurie]

I think this is a correlation/causation thing. The same reason they didn't attend K is likely the reason they are behind, and will make it harder to keep up no matter when they start going to that special building. So lowering the mandatory age to 3 still wouldn't help those kids, because something else is missing in their lives. There are always going to be some at an academic disadvantage, just as there are always some at an economic disadvantage or with other challenges.

 

I agree. My oldest attended PS K already reading and ahead of his peers in most subjects so he spent the year bored and restless. He could have skipped K and not been behind at all in 1st grade.

 

I think it's more about the kids who need PS because there is not any kind of discussion, interaction, or education in the home. They will still not be getting help with homework or accountability at home though, so PS alone is not a magic solution.

[LillyMama]

On the other hand, it seems to increase the push for earlier and earlier academics in our country. And that I have a problem with.

 

This is simultaneously one of the reasons we homeschool (to let kids be kids longer) and why we don't HATE our local ps district (because they encourage and facilitate kids being allowed to start when they are ready.

 

But, although people are saying that kids can catch up, I have just seen enough anecdotal experiences that I can see why people are pushing it. In environments where kids don't have pre-school because the moms are able to stay home and spend time with their kids, sure. Those kids are probably in homes where they're supported. Those kids can catch up. But kids who don't go to preschool because the parents can't pay for it, and both parents are working 1-3 jobs, they aren't going to be given the support at home to help them catch up. Not because the parents don't care, but they have enough stress keeping food on the table and shoes on their feet. Those kids show up to K, are grouped with the "behind" and "struggling" readers and all the education they get is at school. No support at home. They learn they are dumb and they don't know how to fix it, or even believe that they can.

 

I grew up in a very mixed community, and went to school with millionaires and kids whose families live in their cars. The discrepancies around socio-economic lines are real. Yes, there are many causes. No, I don't think government intervention can fix them all. But I respect them for trying.

 

It's one of the reasons that my kids and I volunteer at an after-school program at an inner-city school twice a month. My kids get to play with kids from different backgrounds and I can help with some after-school tutoring and reading-enforcement. I wish I could do more.

[FaithManor]

I think this is a correlation/causation thing. The same reason they didn't attend K is likely the reason they are behind, and will make it harder to keep up no matter when they start going to that special building. So lowering the mandatory age to 3 still wouldn't help those kids, because something else is missing in their lives. There are always going to be some at an academic disadvantage, just as there are always some at an economic disadvantage or with other challenges.

 

 

Agreed. Correlation does not prove causation and there are bigger factors at play than just age. Just because my 3 year old was ready to read, doesn't mean everyone else's 3 year old should go to kindy. Just because someone's 5 year old will wiz through kindy and have no problems educationally in the future, that doesn't mean it's true of every 5 year old.

 

The interesting thing is that here in Michigan, the statistics on 4 year olds in kindy are not good. Someone finally got their acts together and began compiling the statistics and what they discovered is that an awful lot of 4 year olds aren't ready for school and that even when school administrators test these 4 year olds and recommend to parents that they delay a year, parents want relief from daycare costs and send them anyway. These kids struggle all the way through school and there is a higher drop out rate for kids that began school at 4 than 5. So, while California is aiming to get younger kids in school, Michigan is thinking of changing the age to get into kindy from 5 by Dec. 1st, to 5 by August 1st though others have proposed Sept. 1st and still others have proposed July 1st since July - July is a typical fiscal year. That bill is also just in committee being tossed around. But frankly, it makes sense to me. Due to fiscal planning and teacher contracts really needing to be signed in June with classroom space being allotted in July, I'm all for 5 by July 1st as the cut-off.

 

Faith

[*********]

In California, children who are 6 by December 2 must be enrolled in school. the law would change that to 5 by December 2.

 

That is ABSURD.

 

That would mean that Moose, whose birthday is November 22, would have had to start Kindy at 4 years old.

 

No WAY would that have been a good idea. Not just academically, but emotionally. He would NOT have been ready to be away from me all day at 4 years old. Good grief, he doesn't even want to spend a few hours away from me now at age 6 1/2. :001_smile:

[*********]

The interesting thing is that here in Michigan, the statistics on 4 year olds in kindy are not good. Someone finally got their acts together and began compiling the statistics and what they discovered is that an awful lot of 4 year olds aren't ready for school and that even when school administrators test these 4 year olds and recommend to parents that they delay a year, parents want relief from daycare costs and send them anyway. These kids struggle all the way through school and there is a higher drop out rate for kids that began school at 4 than 5. So, while California is aiming to get younger kids in school, Michigan is thinking of changing the age to get into kindy from 5 by Dec. 1st, to 5 by August 1st though others have proposed Sept. 1st and still others have proposed July 1st since July - July is a typical fiscal year. That bill is also just in committee being tossed around. But frankly, it makes sense to me. Due to fiscal planning and teacher contracts really needing to be signed in June with classroom space being allotted in July, I'm all for 5 by July 1st as the cut-off.

 

Faith

 

Intersting, Faith. I know that my ds with a Nov. 22 birthday could have started Kindy at age 4, but that I could have held him to start the next year at age 5 (if we had done public school).

 

There is NO way that he would have been ready to start PS kindy at age 4. No way.

 

Now, my parents put me in Kindy when I was 4 (Nov. 6 birthday). And I did well; in fact, I was in the gifted program. But I hated being the youngest in my class all the time.

[SaraSeashell]

So is it a done deal...has it passed?

[ktgrok]

Ok, so it changes the cut off, saying they must be at least 5 by Sept. 1st, but doesn't change the compulsory age. So although kindy is now mandatory, you CAN start late, so I'm ok with the law.

[DawnM]

When I moved to NC (from California) I was surprised at the number of parents here in NC who do just that.

 

They offer something here called TK (Transitional Kindergarden- private schools) for the kids who are too old for pre-school but whose parents don't want them to start K yet.

 

Dawn

 

Where I live the cutoff for Kindergarten is the end of the year so kids with Sept to Dec birthdays are 4. It was popular about 10 years ago for people to hold kids back a year and start them later but about 5 years ago it started falling out of favor. Kindergarten is aimed at those 4/5 year olds and the kids that were turning 6 were finding themselves essentially with "babies" and becoming frustrated. Now you really only see kids who are assessed as not ready academically for K being held a year.

[Lisbeth]

I think this is a correlation/causation thing. The same reason they didn't attend K is likely the reason they are behind, and will make it harder to keep up no matter when they start going to that special building. So lowering the mandatory age to 3 still wouldn't help those kids, because something else is missing in their lives. There are always going to be some at an academic disadvantage, just as there are always some at an economic disadvantage or with other challenges.

 

:iagree:

[K&Rs Mom]

They offer something here called TK (Transitional Kindergarden- private schools) for the kids who are too old for pre-school but whose parents don't want them to start K yet.

 

The same thing is available here, called Young 5's. It used to be rare, but now I think there are as many Young 5 classes as K classes - apparently it's become common to have a gap year between preschool & kindergarten. :confused:

[Spy Car]

The actual amended bill is here

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1751-1800/ab_1772_bill_20120411_amended_asm_v97.html

 

It now says a child must spend a year in kindergarten before moving on to first grade starting in the 2014-2015 school year. That same year the cut-off for kindergarten will be moved back to Sept. 1 so a child must turn five on or before Sept. 1 to start kindergarten.

I work in a low performing, low socio-economic school (all the kids are on free /reduced lunch). There are plenty of parents who register their kids for kindergarten midway through the year for various reasons. Not one has said they were working with them. These kids are really behind by the end of kindergarten. These are not kids who are transferring schools or coming from private schools. If we recommend retention the parent has to sign a paper agreeing. Some parents refuse so their children go on to first grade and fall further behind.

 

Well when one reads the actual law it bears nothing in common with the lies and scare-tactics of HSLDA.

 

I'm so sick of this group. They. never. tell. the. truth.

 

Bill

[Crimson Wife]

Well when one reads the actual law it bears nothing in common with the lies and scare-tactics of HSLDA.

 

I'm so sick of this group. They. never. tell. the. truth.

 

Bill

 

Except it isn't just HSLDA who are opposed to this bill. The amended bill reads:

 

"This bill, beginning with the 2014-15 school year, would require a child to complete one year of kindergarten before he or she may be admitted to the first grade, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program."

 

This language would require families who HS under the private schools exemption to file the PSA for their kindergarten students, not just 1st graders & up. This requirement would, in turn, subject private homeschools to the much more stringent regulations for kindergartens.

 

If the bill specifically stated that it only pertains to students entering public school 1st grade and not those entering private school 1st grade, I wouldn't have a big problem with it. I don't see why the government is interfering with the right of private elementary schools to determine whether or not to require kindergarten for their students.

[Hot Lava Mama]

You hit the nail on the head. It "appears" that it doesn't do much by reading JUST THAT BILL, but that bill will impose the other legislation already in place on HS for K'ers. There are all kinds of things that are required from number of bathrooms to ADA requirements.

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm pretty sick and tired of the government sticking its nose in my business. In California, they can't get enough of the "nanny state" laws.

 

How many of you are teaching your children only because "the law" says you have to?

 

Not me. I teach my children because I know what is best for my children.

 

The change they are trying to make has everything to do with the powerful teacher's unions here in this state. They run the legislators!

 

Hot Lava Mama

[LibraryLover]

You hit the nail on the head. It "appears" that it doesn't do much by reading JUST THAT BILL, but that bill will impose the other legislation already in place on HS for K'ers. There are all kinds of things that are required from number of bathrooms to ADA requirements.

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm pretty sick and tired of the government sticking its nose in my business. In California, they can't get enough of the "nanny state" laws.

 

How many of you are teaching your children only because "the law" says you have to?

 

Not me. I teach my children because I know what is best for my children.

 

The change they are trying to make has everything to do with the powerful teacher's unions here in this state. They run the legislators!

 

Hot Lava Mama

 

 

Where is that for hsers? I don't see that.

[Hot Lava Mama]

is that the pre-school/day care requirements (with regard to everything from licensing etc.) currently apply to K. Since there isn't an exception to this requirement in that law they are looking at passing, then those regulations still apply. If you google the pre-school/day care regulations, you will see how difficult it will be for an average HS to complete all those items.

 

Even if that weren't the case, it's not the governments business! It just isn't.

 

The only reason they are pushing this is because of the powerful teacher's unions in this state. They run Sacramento!

Hot Lava Mama