Her arguments in favor of starting almost all kids in Kindergarten at age five boiled down to two points: first, that the brain develops regardless of grade, and second, many reasons parents start children a year late have to do with their adult needs rather than the child's needs, such as peer choices, future sports success, or anxiety about separation. While she seems to have a good sense of what makes a good Kindergarten program, her view is best summed up in the line "If the program is not a true hands-on, positive, developmentally appropriate program, then perhaps redshirting is a good choice or choosing a different school might be an even better one."
For the sake of fairness, let's look at what she didn't acknowledge in her post:
-Many families don't have the financial or social capital to choose a different school other than the one their child is assigned to. Those that do are usually upper-middle class and white -- exactly the demographic that is often choosing to delay their child's start in order to try to maintain the academic and other advantages that come with white privilege.
-The curriculum in Kindergarten has been accelerated to become what First Grade used to be - a phenomenon well documented in both the academic literature and news media, including articles in Newsweek (2006), The Washington Post (2007), and The Chicago Tribune (2010). So pushing children who may or may not be ready for Kindergarten into First Grade academics makes little sense.
-The research of the impact of redshirting is extremely mixed, despite her claims: some research suggests that boys and low-income students have significant benefits to waiting a year, and that starting Kindergarten too soon can have significant negative effects.
-Brain development is not only regardless of age, it is also unique to every child. Simply because a child is five does not mean s/he is neurologically ready for the work of Kindergarten. And simply because five year old child spends a year in a preschool or bridge-K program does not mean that it is a wasted year for neurological, academic, intellectual, social, and/or emotional development.
That these and other important factors were left out of the piece is predictable; what truly annoyed me was the style of the piece. I'm all for substantive conversations that encompass differing opinions on important topics, but let's be honest about how we are approaching the discussion. Although initially positioned as an objective perspective, starting with the "Kindergarten redshirting different for each child" title for the post, the piece is in fact an unstinting push to get age 5 children into Kindergarten, right up to the very last line that tells readers who choose to take another year for their child "While it may be too late to get him into the original kindergarten program you wanted to, do not allow him to waste this critical year of opportunity." I'm glad that Mrs. McClintock recognizes the characteristics of a good Kindergarten, but I wish she could have been more transparent and direct about her views at the outset of the article.
At TBS, we believe that age is not the determining factor in Kindergarten readiness, and that's why we have a Transitional K program at our Early Childhood Center. We recognize that Kindergarten readiness means ready child, ready family, and ready school - a chronologically young child may thrive in Kindergarten, while a chronologically old child may do better in the TK program. Our "cut off" date is September 1, and we work closely with each family of a child with a fall birthday to determine whether the Explorers program or our Kindergarten will be a better fit.
No comments:
Post a Comment