GracieMae
01-31-2004, 10:45 PM
This is a timely subject for me because legislation was attempted last week to make public school manditory at age 5 instead of 6. This is part of a larger move to create mandatory preschool. The attempt was thwarted in part because of action taken by California Homeschool Network. They have changed the bill and it no longer attempts these goals. What do you think? Good or bad making mandatory education younger and younger?
Collette
Mandatory Kindergarten Is Unnecessary
Compelling children to attend school at an earlier age does not yield consistent results.
Compulsory attendance or mandatory kindergarten at early ages is not the way to improve academic excellence. In fact, it may harm the development of young children to force them into the school system at a young age. The studies below demonstrate that compelling 5 and 6 year olds to attend school is not only unnecessary, but also violates a parent's fundamental right to direct the education of their children, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 at 233; Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
Studies Demonstrate the Failure of Early Education Programs
A number of child development researchers have recognized that normal children who are admitted to school too early will often become underachievers and display developmental problems. Dr. David Elkind, Tufts University psychologist, explains
There is really no evidence that early formal institutionalization brings any lasting or permanent benefits for children. By contrast, the risk to the child's motivation, intellectual growth, and self-esteem could well do serious damage to the child's emerging personality. It is reasonable to conclude that the early instruction of young children derives more from the need and priorities of adults than from what we know of good pedagogy for young children.1
One of the most widespread sources of childhood stress is the separation of children from their parents at young ages. Karl Zinsmeister, Adjunct Research Associate at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, says
Declining parental attachment is an extremely serious risk to children today. The verdict of enormous psychological literature is that time spent with a parent is the very clearest correlate of healthy child development.2
Research indicates it is advisable to move away from formal academic instruction to a developmental approach for early childhood education. Children who are at home with their parents can develop the skills necessary for learning in a day-to-day setting and thus be prepared for an academic setting.3
Dr. Jean Piaget, long respected in the academic community for his studies in developmental research, found a child's cognitive abilities usually show maturity between the ages of 7 and 9. Many children are put at risk by compulsory attendance statutes that do not take into account slower maturation rates.4
Lack of Results in International Early Education Programs
Early education is a growing concern to many countries around the world. Much of this concern has been centered in Europe, where governments provide care and schooling for children as young as 1. Billions of dollars are spent on these programs, which are designed to give children a head start in their education and socialization. But is there documentable evidence that early education has made a difference in the academic progress of these children?
This question can be answered by a recent study that compared the academic scores of children from many of the industrialized nations of the world. In 2000, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) was conducted, which tested children from 32 nations in the areas of reading literacy, mathematics, and science.5 The results showed that children who have to start school at a very young age did not consistently do better than those who can start later. A similar assessment, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), revealed comparable results.6
The country of Finland was a standout in both of these international assessments, ranking near or at the top in all tested subjects. These impressive results were achieved despite the fact that school attendance in Finland is not compulsory until age 7, later than almost any other European country.7
Japan, Korea, and Singapore also had some of the highest scoring students in the PISA and TIMSS assessments, but none of these countries have fully developed early education programs. Japan's early education is probably the most comprehensive out of the three, and even there, substantial numbers of children do not attend any school before 1st grade. Singapore does not have any publicly funded early education.8
Some of the lower scoring countries in PISA were Sweden and Greece, which both emphasize early education. Sweden has some of the most comprehensive childcare in Europe, with the vast majority of children ages 1-12 having a place in a publicly funded child-care center. Even with this emphasis, however, Sweden ranked among the average countries in the PISA test, and Greece was among the five worst nations in all three subject areas.9
High Costs and Low Results Incurred by Early Education Programs
Expanding the number of children required to attend school increases state education costs and thereby may mean an increase in taxes. Such an instant expansion of the student population requires the hiring of more teachers, more truant officers, and more administrative staff. While the change in some school districts may be negligible, the change to the combined school districts of a state would produce a significant impact on state revenues.
When a lowering of compulsory attendance age was considered in Alabama in 1991, the Alabama Legislative Fiscal Offices estimated the cost of the change to be at least $4.7 million per year.10 In 1998, when Connecticut considered lowering its compulsory attendance age, a state department of education representative testified that one town (Enfield, CT) would require 13 new classrooms while another (Meridian, CT) would need 20 additional classrooms.11
Also consider Head Start, a federal program that began providing services in 1965 with an enrollment of 561,000 children and a budget of just over $96 million. By 2000, the enrollment had only grown to 860,000 children, but the budget had increased dramatically, costing taxpayers over $5 billion dollars. That is a 5,108% growth rate in spending with only a 53% increase in enrollment.
The most important goal of any education program is that children be educated. Studies of Head Start, however, demonstrate that early education produces no apparent academic benefits.
In its early years, extensive studies were undertaken to prove Head Start worked. But the opposite turned out to be true. In 1969, the Westinghouse Learning Corporation found no difference in the behavior and educational achievement between Head Start and other underclass children.
Sixteen years later, the CRS Synthesis Project study, commissioned by HHS, came to the same conclusion. Although children showed "immediate gains," by the second grade "there are no educationally meaningful differences."12
State-by-State Comparison
A review of compulsory attendance laws across the nation shows that requiring young children to attend school may be largely unnecessary. Only nine states require attendance of 5 year olds, and seven of those nine allow exemptions for parents to withhold their children from school until age 6. The other 41 states allow parents to wait until their children are 6, 7, or even 8 years old before beginning formal education.13
During the 2002 legislative session, seven states attempted to lower the school entrance age. Three of these bills would have lowered the age of entrance to 5. In 2001 the District of Columbia even contemplated a bill which would have required a child to be enrolled in some type of school setting if the child turns 3 on or before December 31. Thus, even some 2 year olds would be subject to DC's compulsory attendance law.
In any case, testimony in the 1998 Connecticut hearings estimated that only 3-9% of the state's eligible children were kept out of kindergarten by their parents.14 It seems unnecessary for a state to spend so much time and money compelling attendance on what arguably may only be 3% of the state's 5 and 6 year olds.
This is especially true when considered in the light of the results from National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests administered to school children in all 50 states. Scores of children from states that have low compulsory attendance ages (5-6) did not score any higher than children from the other states, and in some subjects their average was actually lower.15
The NAEP scores demonstrate that no real academic results have come from a lowered compulsory age, and therefore the higher cost of early education is not justified.
Conclusion
Rushing children into formal education too soon will exact a heavy toll on the development of those children and weaken the role of family in their lives. The resulting social problems will place even greater demands on private and government agencies and more pressure on taxpayers. Not only is compulsory attendance for young children unnecessary and expensive, but it is counter-productive, thwarting parents who want to spend more time with their children.
Educational public policy should encourage excellence and responsibility in parenting so that children will develop emotionally and socially, will achieve academically, and will be better able to handle the challenges of adulthood when they mature.
Prepared by the legal staff of the Home School Legal Defense Association.
Reprint permission granted.
Endnotes:
Elkind, David. "Making Healthy Educational Choices," Miseducation: Pre-schoolers at Risk, 1987.
Fuller, Cheri. "Early Schooling: An Idea Whose Time Has Gone?" Southwest Policy Institute Policy Study, No. 2, 1989, p. 3.
Lynn, Lee Anne and Vicki Winstead. "Mandatory kindergarten means parents lose even more control." The Birmingham News, June 5, 1991.
Ibid.
2000 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Benchmarking Report Third International Mathematics and Science Study: 1999 - Eighth Grade (TIMSS).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Winstead, Vicki. "A Study in Support of Parental Choice in Early Childhood Education," published by Eagle Forum of Alabama, 1991.
Testimony before the Connecticut House Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee meeting, March 27, 1998.
Rockwell, Llewellyn H. "Dead Start," Free Market, January 1991, p. 2.
Klicka, Christopher J. Home Schooling in the United States: A Legal Analysis, Home School Legal Defense Association, 1985, 1998.
Testimony before the Connecticut House Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee meeting, March 27, 1998. Elaine Zimmerman, Executive Director of the Commission on Children and George Coleman of the Connecticut State Department of Education Division of Educational Programs and Services Bureau of Early Childhood Education and Social Services.
Reading scores based on 1998 NAEP Reading Assessment; Math scores taken from 2000 NAEP Mathematics Report Card.
http://afaar.org/Headstart-MandKindergartenUnnecessary.htm
Collette
Mandatory Kindergarten Is Unnecessary
Compelling children to attend school at an earlier age does not yield consistent results.
Compulsory attendance or mandatory kindergarten at early ages is not the way to improve academic excellence. In fact, it may harm the development of young children to force them into the school system at a young age. The studies below demonstrate that compelling 5 and 6 year olds to attend school is not only unnecessary, but also violates a parent's fundamental right to direct the education of their children, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 at 233; Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
Studies Demonstrate the Failure of Early Education Programs
A number of child development researchers have recognized that normal children who are admitted to school too early will often become underachievers and display developmental problems. Dr. David Elkind, Tufts University psychologist, explains
There is really no evidence that early formal institutionalization brings any lasting or permanent benefits for children. By contrast, the risk to the child's motivation, intellectual growth, and self-esteem could well do serious damage to the child's emerging personality. It is reasonable to conclude that the early instruction of young children derives more from the need and priorities of adults than from what we know of good pedagogy for young children.1
One of the most widespread sources of childhood stress is the separation of children from their parents at young ages. Karl Zinsmeister, Adjunct Research Associate at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, says
Declining parental attachment is an extremely serious risk to children today. The verdict of enormous psychological literature is that time spent with a parent is the very clearest correlate of healthy child development.2
Research indicates it is advisable to move away from formal academic instruction to a developmental approach for early childhood education. Children who are at home with their parents can develop the skills necessary for learning in a day-to-day setting and thus be prepared for an academic setting.3
Dr. Jean Piaget, long respected in the academic community for his studies in developmental research, found a child's cognitive abilities usually show maturity between the ages of 7 and 9. Many children are put at risk by compulsory attendance statutes that do not take into account slower maturation rates.4
Lack of Results in International Early Education Programs
Early education is a growing concern to many countries around the world. Much of this concern has been centered in Europe, where governments provide care and schooling for children as young as 1. Billions of dollars are spent on these programs, which are designed to give children a head start in their education and socialization. But is there documentable evidence that early education has made a difference in the academic progress of these children?
This question can be answered by a recent study that compared the academic scores of children from many of the industrialized nations of the world. In 2000, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) was conducted, which tested children from 32 nations in the areas of reading literacy, mathematics, and science.5 The results showed that children who have to start school at a very young age did not consistently do better than those who can start later. A similar assessment, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), revealed comparable results.6
The country of Finland was a standout in both of these international assessments, ranking near or at the top in all tested subjects. These impressive results were achieved despite the fact that school attendance in Finland is not compulsory until age 7, later than almost any other European country.7
Japan, Korea, and Singapore also had some of the highest scoring students in the PISA and TIMSS assessments, but none of these countries have fully developed early education programs. Japan's early education is probably the most comprehensive out of the three, and even there, substantial numbers of children do not attend any school before 1st grade. Singapore does not have any publicly funded early education.8
Some of the lower scoring countries in PISA were Sweden and Greece, which both emphasize early education. Sweden has some of the most comprehensive childcare in Europe, with the vast majority of children ages 1-12 having a place in a publicly funded child-care center. Even with this emphasis, however, Sweden ranked among the average countries in the PISA test, and Greece was among the five worst nations in all three subject areas.9
High Costs and Low Results Incurred by Early Education Programs
Expanding the number of children required to attend school increases state education costs and thereby may mean an increase in taxes. Such an instant expansion of the student population requires the hiring of more teachers, more truant officers, and more administrative staff. While the change in some school districts may be negligible, the change to the combined school districts of a state would produce a significant impact on state revenues.
When a lowering of compulsory attendance age was considered in Alabama in 1991, the Alabama Legislative Fiscal Offices estimated the cost of the change to be at least $4.7 million per year.10 In 1998, when Connecticut considered lowering its compulsory attendance age, a state department of education representative testified that one town (Enfield, CT) would require 13 new classrooms while another (Meridian, CT) would need 20 additional classrooms.11
Also consider Head Start, a federal program that began providing services in 1965 with an enrollment of 561,000 children and a budget of just over $96 million. By 2000, the enrollment had only grown to 860,000 children, but the budget had increased dramatically, costing taxpayers over $5 billion dollars. That is a 5,108% growth rate in spending with only a 53% increase in enrollment.
The most important goal of any education program is that children be educated. Studies of Head Start, however, demonstrate that early education produces no apparent academic benefits.
In its early years, extensive studies were undertaken to prove Head Start worked. But the opposite turned out to be true. In 1969, the Westinghouse Learning Corporation found no difference in the behavior and educational achievement between Head Start and other underclass children.
Sixteen years later, the CRS Synthesis Project study, commissioned by HHS, came to the same conclusion. Although children showed "immediate gains," by the second grade "there are no educationally meaningful differences."12
State-by-State Comparison
A review of compulsory attendance laws across the nation shows that requiring young children to attend school may be largely unnecessary. Only nine states require attendance of 5 year olds, and seven of those nine allow exemptions for parents to withhold their children from school until age 6. The other 41 states allow parents to wait until their children are 6, 7, or even 8 years old before beginning formal education.13
During the 2002 legislative session, seven states attempted to lower the school entrance age. Three of these bills would have lowered the age of entrance to 5. In 2001 the District of Columbia even contemplated a bill which would have required a child to be enrolled in some type of school setting if the child turns 3 on or before December 31. Thus, even some 2 year olds would be subject to DC's compulsory attendance law.
In any case, testimony in the 1998 Connecticut hearings estimated that only 3-9% of the state's eligible children were kept out of kindergarten by their parents.14 It seems unnecessary for a state to spend so much time and money compelling attendance on what arguably may only be 3% of the state's 5 and 6 year olds.
This is especially true when considered in the light of the results from National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests administered to school children in all 50 states. Scores of children from states that have low compulsory attendance ages (5-6) did not score any higher than children from the other states, and in some subjects their average was actually lower.15
The NAEP scores demonstrate that no real academic results have come from a lowered compulsory age, and therefore the higher cost of early education is not justified.
Conclusion
Rushing children into formal education too soon will exact a heavy toll on the development of those children and weaken the role of family in their lives. The resulting social problems will place even greater demands on private and government agencies and more pressure on taxpayers. Not only is compulsory attendance for young children unnecessary and expensive, but it is counter-productive, thwarting parents who want to spend more time with their children.
Educational public policy should encourage excellence and responsibility in parenting so that children will develop emotionally and socially, will achieve academically, and will be better able to handle the challenges of adulthood when they mature.
Prepared by the legal staff of the Home School Legal Defense Association.
Reprint permission granted.
Endnotes:
Elkind, David. "Making Healthy Educational Choices," Miseducation: Pre-schoolers at Risk, 1987.
Fuller, Cheri. "Early Schooling: An Idea Whose Time Has Gone?" Southwest Policy Institute Policy Study, No. 2, 1989, p. 3.
Lynn, Lee Anne and Vicki Winstead. "Mandatory kindergarten means parents lose even more control." The Birmingham News, June 5, 1991.
Ibid.
2000 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Benchmarking Report Third International Mathematics and Science Study: 1999 - Eighth Grade (TIMSS).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Winstead, Vicki. "A Study in Support of Parental Choice in Early Childhood Education," published by Eagle Forum of Alabama, 1991.
Testimony before the Connecticut House Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee meeting, March 27, 1998.
Rockwell, Llewellyn H. "Dead Start," Free Market, January 1991, p. 2.
Klicka, Christopher J. Home Schooling in the United States: A Legal Analysis, Home School Legal Defense Association, 1985, 1998.
Testimony before the Connecticut House Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee meeting, March 27, 1998. Elaine Zimmerman, Executive Director of the Commission on Children and George Coleman of the Connecticut State Department of Education Division of Educational Programs and Services Bureau of Early Childhood Education and Social Services.
Reading scores based on 1998 NAEP Reading Assessment; Math scores taken from 2000 NAEP Mathematics Report Card.
http://afaar.org/Headstart-MandKindergartenUnnecessary.htm