ISLAND VOICES
Early access to education a must
By Donna L. Ching
Current brain development research warns us that a child's cognitive and emotional potential is formed primarily between birth and age 5. Pushing back the entrance age for kindergarten without provision for a quality alternative such as universal preschool is not in the best interests of children or working families.
The Senate bill that would raise the minimum age for entering kindergarten, SB2032, is regressive, backsliding and undermines working parents. Hawai'i, as one of about 15 states that has universal full-day kindergarten, is recognized as a national leader in kindergarten access. More states are trying to go in this direction.
Full-day kindergarten is necessary because of what is required of children in elementary education (i.e., high-stakes testing in third grade) and it helps working families ensure kids are stimulated during the most critical learning years.
One of the national authorities on this set of issues is New York's venerable, 100-year-old Foundation for Child Development. In an October 2001 paper, "Kindergarten: The Overlooked School Year," author Sara Vecchiotti asserts: "Both schools and parents sometimes delay children's entrance into kindergarten for a year (most likely for summer children), a practice called red-shirting. This practice is based on the belief that children need extra time to mature and that older children adjust better to the demands of kindergarten than younger children. Research does not support these practices. Extra time to mature or additional educational experience (e.g., retention or transitional kindergarten) does not result in an academic boost. While older children do initially perform better academically, these positive outcomes are limited and fade out in the early grades. ...
"Retaining children in kindergarten can also negatively affect children's social and emotional development, particularly their sense of self."
Holding children out of kindergarten for a year would be robbing them of a critical opportunity to learn, especially since many child-care places or arrangements are of poor quality. Pushing the kindergarten-entrance age back is pushing kids further out of critical developmental windows.
The author of SB 2032, Rep. Norman Sakamoto, needs to know that when states push back eligibility birth dates, it is purely and simply an economic measure.
Most of the other states have low requirements primarily for economic reasons. Historically, kin-dergartens were full day but were cut back during the Depression and other economic declines.
Why did New Mexico, a conservative state with high poverty rates and a maverick governor, pass legislation two years ago to implement full-day kindergarten? Why is Oklahoma paying for full-day kindergarten next year, after financing universal preschool for many years? Why would Hawai'i want to go backward when it comes to educating children?
Any money saved in kindergarten enrollments would be over the short term because parents and the state will have to pay dearly for remediation when children begin failing socially and academically later on in life.
A 2000 study by Kaufman, Pianta and Cox reports that 46 percent or more of all children had specific problems transitioning to kindergarten.
The readiness issue is not endemic to the youngest children. It may be symptomatic of unrealistic expectations for all kindergartners, a need for improved continuity between early education and kindergarten or a confusion as to the respective learning objectives of pre-kindergarten and kindergarten.
Children need early access to learning opportunities. With a lifetime of learning in jeopardy, the stakes are very high.
Donna Ching is a management consultant specializing in early childhood issue.
Correction: Donna L. Ching is a management consultant specializing in early childhood issues. She was incorrectly identified in a previous version of this commentary.
