Who's Ready for Kindergarten?

The New York Times

Introduction

Brett Coomer/Houston Chronicle, via Associated PressAre these prekindergarten students ready for the big time?

For this year's graduates of preschool, the pressure begins. Most children in those adorable moving-up ceremonies are 5 years old and will start kindergarten in the fall. But in some states, 4-year-olds are in the group as well, and their parents are anxious: Are their children ready for the rigors of kindergarten?

The option of delaying kindergarten, a practice referred to as red-shirting, is popular among upper-middle-class families who want to give their children the advantage of time before they start having to take high-stakes standardized tests in school. Educators and parents have long debated the issue of when children should start kindergarten.

But some children will always be young for their peer group in any given class, and this difference can be particularly noticeable in early grades. How can American educators do a better job of deciding when a child is ready to start school and perhaps even redesign kindergarten itself?

The Path to Equity Starts Earlier

June 12, 2011

Robert C. Pianta is the dean of the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education. He advises federal and state agencies on early education.

I receive more calls from reporters, parents, school board members and state officials about kindergarten entry than any other topic. Entry-age debates generate angst and opinions and too-often are not grounded in facts.

If pre-school programs were more effective, maybe I wouldn't receive more calls about kindergarten entry than any other issue.

Here’s the rub: children really differ from one another in skills and interests as they start school. They differ at 6 or at 4, or anywhere in between. A cohort reflects at least a whole year of developmental difference no matter the cutoff. States that start later have similar problems as states that start earlier. Variation is the reality of human development.

It would be nice if a test could say “this child is ready for kindergarten” or our kindergartens accommodated every nuance, facet and extent of difference among children. We don’t have either. And if we did, what other debates emerge? Imagine the perfect test preventing access for kids whose skills didn’t meet the bar. And would we open up perfectly individualized kindergartens for wunderkind 3-year-olds?

The challenge of the situation is largely about equity: the possible boost for disadvantaged 4-year-olds by extra months in kindergarten. But why are these kids not enrolled in a potentially more educationally appropriate pre-kindergarten program that should actually boost readiness skills and close gaps at the start of school? To me, the most important questions are about whether we have good and effective early education programs that enroll all eligible children and bridge early childhood programs, like Head Start, with kindergarten through second grade.

Arguing about shifting entry dates might reduce a little of the variation among children in a classroom, but no entry date solves the real problems of ensuring an effective early education experience for all kids, particularly those most vulnerable, whose chances have been disadvantaged from the start.

Age Doesn't Matter

 June 12, 2011, 

Hermine H. Marshall was coordinator of the early childhood education and master’s degree programs at San Francisco State University, where she is professor emerita.

Belief in matching age with grade is based on an outdated assumption that children’s development proceeds automatically with the passage of time. But in deciding when a child enters school, age is not the critical factor. Current research indicates that readiness requires appropriate stimulation and guidance.

Good -- and better prepared -- teachers are able to meet the needs and skill levels of a wide range of children.

Although teachers often observe that older children are more successful in kindergarten and in the first few grades, research demonstrates that these differences usually disappear by grade three. Moreover, some of the youngest score in the highest quartile in reading, math and general knowledge and some of the oldest score in the lowest quartile.

Because of the current emphasis on standardized testing, many teachers teach children in a lock-step. In contrast, good teachers are able to meet the needs and skill levels of a wide range of children. They are able to stimulate, guide and instruct children at their individual levels by supplying extra help or presenting more challenging supplementary materials.

Raising the entry age for kindergarten without offering the opportunity for cognitive, social and motor stimulation for younger children and children from poor families is a false solution. What's far more important is offering developmentally appropriate preschools or extended-day kindergartens where the goal is to prepare all children for first grade.

Better teacher preparation that provides the know-how to accommodate and challenge the range of children in their classes is also key. Smaller class size and educationally diagnostic evaluation methods would help better meet the needs of individual children.

Judge the Class, Not the Kid

 June 12, 2011

Beth Graue, a former kindergarten teacher, is a professor of early childhood education and the associate director of the Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin Madison.

Changing the kindergarten entrance age or delaying kindergarten entry seem like simple fixes for readiness problems. What could be easier than allowing children to have a bit more maturity as they come to school?

The age advantage at the start of school is temporary, small and relative to the ages of the children in a class.

This is especially true today, as kindergarten, experienced by many of us as a soft and social transition to school, has become increasingly academic. Easels and blocks have given way to a narrow focus on reading and math. In such a souped-up environment, the youngest children are at a disadvantage, right?

But simple solutions rarely solve complex problems. The flaw in the logic is that readiness is largely relative. In Connecticut, children born late in the year are in danger because they begin kindergarten at 4. In Wisconsin, with a Sept. 1 entry, summer birthdays are worrisome and children with fall birthdays are seen as too mature. Being on the wrong side of any entrance date is a concern for some teachers and parents who prize a supposed advantage of the oldest in the group. But this advantage is temporary, small and relative to the ages of the other children in a class.

Readiness is also relative to the curriculum -- children have to be ready for something. The run-away kindergarten curriculum is designed less for the developmental needs of children than anticipation of some later high-stakes test. A real example of a chicken and egg problem, the escalating demands of this curriculum coincide with a kindergarten of increasingly older children. Do we look for older kindergartners because we are asking them to do essentially first grade tasks?

When two-thirds of 4-year-olds are enrolled in some kind of preschool program, I have to wonder how tinkering with the age of kindergartners makes any sense. We could do much better by reorienting the kindergarten to children who are there. This kindergarten is inclusive of both 4- and 5-year-olds, of tiny boys who aren’t interested in scissors and big girls who read. It balances attention to the social and emotional needs of children and their cognitive growth. It is a place where play is not a four-letter word but a rich source of learning and development.

None of this requires a lessening of expectations -- it just necessitates a system that values children and their needs.