Kindergarten

[Voting concluded at 9 a.m. on April 9. Thanks for your input. Based on your votes, I'll be working on #9, #4 and #1. (See my note in the comment field for the full tally.) Stay tuned! -LG]

By the time the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development concluded in Denver on Saturday, thousands of research projects had been presented and discussed, critiqued and disputed. Even the most conscientious attendee at the conference could not have learned about even a fraction of them.

Thank goodness, then, for the 464-page conference program and its online searchable database. Anyone who is motivated to dig in further can search by topic or author to see what was missed. You could even contact the researchers for more information, if you're so inclined.

At Early Ed Watch, we are, indeed, so inclined. But even when we narrow our search to include only those papers with direct bearing on early childhood policy, the possibilities are overwhelming. That is why, dear Early Ed Watch reader, we are asking for your help.

A child-advocacy group called the Alliance for Childhood recently released a white paper with a head-turning title: "Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School."  A press release accompanying the report carries the dramatic headline: "Kindergarten Playtime Disappears, Raising Alarm on Children's Learning and Health."

The report is right to raise the profile of playtime. We agree that it is time to talk seriously about how to ensure that early childhood teachers allow children some much-needed time for active, child-centered play. Through workshops and professional development programs, teachers should be trained in methods that give children space and time to launch themselves into pretend-play scenarios around, say, a make-believe hospital or space shuttle. Kindergarteners need time to figure out for themselves why a block tower won't stand up or whether their kite will fly. 

Christine Gralow, a teacher who blogs on the New York Times website, writes about the difficulties parents face in finding appropriate kindergarten placements for their young children with disabilities--particularly autism. Although she's focused on New York, the problems she describes--complex bureacratic hoops, difficulties obtaining appropriate services for children, lack of space in appropriate programs, and inequities in the services offered to children whose parents are less affluent or savvy--are hardly unique to that city. The issues that Gralow describes can be particularly problematic for children in the early years, because young children with disabilities can't afford to waste learning time while their parents struggle with school districts to get them services. As states and school districts invest in early education reforms, they need to ensure that those reforms address the needs of children with disabilities and their families. Particular attention needs to be paid to alignment of services for children with disabilities, so that they continue receiving appropriate services when they transition from pre-k to kindergarten or from grade to grade.

Over the past few weeks we’ve looked at kindergarten redshirting, when parents delay children’s entry to kindergarten for a year after the child is eligible to start kindergarten because they don’t think the child is ready for school yet. Overall, the evidence suggests that holding a child back a year is unlikely to confer lasting educational benefits, and does carry potential costs parents may not be aware of. Yet ultimately this is a personal choice for parents, often a difficult one, and we respect the choices that individual parents make based on their children’s needs and the options available to them.

A new study by economists David Deming and Susan Dynarski suggests that the trend towards delaying children's entrance into kindergarten (commonly known as kindergarten redshirting) may be partially to blame for the stagnation in higher education attainment for American youth:

Backers of Prop 8, the California initiative to ban gay marriage, write in an argument submitted for the official November ballot pamphlet that if their measure does not win, kindergarten teachers would be required to teach about gay marriage. (And specifically, to teach there is no difference between gay marriage and opposite-sex marriage). The Yes on 8 campaign argues that such instruction would be mandatory because of state law that requires comprehensive health instruction for all grades, K-12. Part of that instruction, under law, requires teaching in "the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage."

Yes, but it takes a half-dozen leaps of logic to an imagined requirement about teaching gay marriage parity in kindergarten. The argument is nonsense. The law says nothing about requiring that marriage be taught in kindergarten, and nothing about how you teach it. The gambit is described more fully in this San Francisco Chronicle story.

I don't often agree with Richard Whitmire*, but I do enjoy reading his new-ish blog, "Why Boys Fail?" Richard is smarter, more honest, and more data-driven than most other proponents of the current "boy crisis" storyline, and to the extent that the boy crisis has a kernel of truth to it--and it does, particularly for poor and minority boys--he's one of the more thoughtful people investigating that.

But this post he recently ran, by University of Alaska-Fairbanks Professor (and noted boy crisis hysteric) Judith Kleinfeld, makes no sense whatsoever. Like many "boy crisis" promoters, Kleinfeld believes many boys are not developmentally ready to enter school or begin learning to read at age five, and that this is one reason boys tend to lag girls in reading achievement. Kleinfeld has proposed delaying boys' entry into kindergarten as one potential strategy to address the literacy gap. She notes that the practice, known as "kindergarten redshirting," is common among affluent, white parents, and suggests that poor and minority boys, whose parents are much less likely to redshirt, would do better if they were held back from kindergarten too.

Then she does something really wierd.

How are young children in America doing? A new report looks at the data and comes up with some pretty good news—as well as a few red flags. Young children’s overall well-being has improved since 1994, with particular improvements in children’s safety and educational attainment. But other trends—such as rising obesity for even young children and a growing number of low-birth-weight babies—still give cause for concern.

The headline of this Wall Street Journal article suggests it will tell a much more interesting story than it does. (h/t: reader GT)

Boston Launches Birth to Five Initiative

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino announced plans on Thursday for a 10 year program to expand and streamline early education services for Beantown’s youngest learners. The public-private partnership, "Thrive in Five", will align educators, health and human service providers, city departments and the private sector to connect families with local services and ensure that day-care providers offer high-quality pre-k programs. The City of Boston, The United Way, local hospitals and others have already committed $3.25 million for the program. Boston's schools have made significant progress under Menino's leadership, and working to extend those education improvements down into the early years is a logical next step.