HOw can K not be mandatory?

Is it pushing too hard if your kid is only 4 and seems ready for kindergarten? Mine is 3 and a half, and lives for learning. She can count to 30 (and beyond if I count with her), she recognizes and can write 7 or 8 letters, and has been begging me to teach her to read. If I work with her all the next year, I think she will be ready for kindergarten at age 4, socially as well as academically. She has been in daycare since she was one, and is more socially advanced than most of her peers.

I've done a little research on this topic, and forgive me if someone else has already done it (I didn't read every post). According to the Education Commission of the States, located in Denver ( http://www.ecs.org ):

"Only eight states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have a compulsory school age of 5 that effectively, if not explicitly, mandates kindergarten attendance for all children. Compulsory attendance ages in the other states range from age 6-8."

That's just FYI; and it surprised me because I've always thought of kindegarten as the beginning of primary education here.

Definitely mandatory here.. they need to go into Kindergarten knowing there ABC's, colors, counting, address etc to even be prepared for K.

My kids have never gone to public school or any conventional school, for that matter. However, I made it part of my job to know all the laws of whatever state we lived at the time. When my oldest was 5, we lived in Indiana where the compulsory age for entering school was seven. Here in Kansas, it is also age seven. Personally, I LOVE that rule and I wish it was 7 or 8 in every state. You can find an oddball around if you hunt but, honestly, most parents who keep their kids home still expose them to learning. The latter age requirement merely accepts the fact that not all children are the same.
I consider it a gift that my kids have not been forced to fit into a mold because I have at LEAST one who simply never would have fit that mold. Maybe some day he will and maybe not. I had one child who could read novels by age 6 and one child who simply could not read more than 1 to 2 pages of a step 1 book by age 9. That child, by the way, was finally diagnosed with focusing and tracking disfunctions that blurred the page and caused headaches. No doctors would listen since he tested with 20/20 vision. I dread to think what being forced to go to school at age 5 and learn letters and numbers that he couldn't track or focus upon would have done to his tender soul. (particularly when "experts" were saying he simply was faking eye problems to get to wear glasses) Applause to the states that have late cumpulsory requirements!

Sharon

PS I suppose I also love those since it means I won't have as much paperwork to do and I can focus on simply teaching my young child instead of testing, logging hours, visiting a supervisor, or whatever other baloney the state requires. That's just me, though.

This post has been edited by raysnroof on Feb 22 2006, 04:11 AM

I have a moral dilemma. If a child still cannot read by, say, 8... and has no learning disabilities whatsoever... *I* personally think that's a problem.

Why?

Because. To see these little kids on a city bus, barely past 6 or 7... with the "bling" and the baggy jeans with the funky hats and hairstyles... the girls with makeup and earring (real life versions of those Bratz dolls).. with cell phones, ipods etc... with or without their parents...and it pains me to know that at least 3/5 still have trouble reading.

Now to let your kid loose in the world with accessories - yet notmake sure they are prepared to take it on... in my opinion, that's just dumb. That tells me, or rather I interpret that as the parent wants to keep the kid happy but won't take the time to prepare them for the world knowledge wise, yet will prepare them fashion wise.

I'm so totally not surprised to see or hear on the news about 8 year olds nowadays committing crimes, doing drugs, being smart-mouthed to teachers... they don't know how much of a priviledge having an education is....and that's too bad.

I persoally think that encouraging a child to learn everything he/she can in the younger years is best for the child... it is FACT that a child before the age of 5 can learn better, easier, and more at once. They are sponges. The years before 5 last the rest of their lives. Which is why I am surprised that the age most places begin is after 5....

just here.

Compulsory attendance in MN isn't until a child is 7 years old. I started my kids when they were 5 but at times I wish I had waited. Everyone knows I home school so I have a very different perspective on these types of things, but I have met mother after mother who home schools their children and they tell me over and over again to not push a child when they are young. They WILL pick it up as they get older. I know one person whose child could not read until they were 9 years old. The mom was so incredibly frustrated but decided to focus on that childs strengths instead of getting worked up about the fact that she couldn't read yet. Now at the age of 13, you won't find the girl without a book in her hands. Her mother believes that if she had pushed her she may not have had such a love of reading now.

When Madeline is having a difficult day with reading (or any subject for that matter) and I don't mean that she isn't trying, she just having a hard time and getting overwhelmed, we will put that subject away for the day-maybe for a week, and when we come back to it she is able to try without feeling frustrated and inadequate and she does much better!. I'll be honest-she is running a bit behind where other kids her age are in reading, but I know she will catch up, and she is doing just fine where she is. The only thing that is suffering is maybe my pride and that I can live with for the well-being of my child. I am so thankful that I can have her at home where she can learn at her own pace and be herself instead of being stuffed into a mold that she just would not fit into.

I think this is just another example of children being forced to grow up too fast and it makes me sad. You're right-parents in these situations are being irresponsible. They allow their children to emulate adults, yet they put little emphasis on the things (education, etc. ) that are necessary to become adults.

Oh I'm not saying they won't be able to pick it up later... and I'm definitely not telling anyone to push their child... but for me, I'm going to try to take advantage that the kids are so eager to learn new things. If they can happily learn to read or write, i.e. the harder things first, the better in my opinion. Especialy if they WANT to learn, and are not forced to.

We'll see how things go... I mean... I still have at least a year before school... lol

Oh I'm not saying they won't be able to pick it up later... and I'm definitely not telling anyone to push their child... but for me, I'm going to try to take advantage that the kids are so eager to learn new things. If they can happily learn to read or write, i.e. the harder things first, the better in my opinion. Especialy if they WANT to learn, and are not forced to.

We'll see how things go... I mean... I still have at least a year before school... lol

I should have said something in my post about this. Absolutely-if they are eager to learn, they should be encouraged to do so. Please don't think I'm advocating forcing children to wait until a certain age. I just think they should go at their own pace.

Personally I feel that children should be encouraged jsut as much as tehy are not forced.. does that make sense? A child's ability and interset should fuel their learning not a age and number of grade.
Holding them back if they are showing interest adn desire can be jsut as detrimental to them as forcing it on them too young. It needs to be a smooth balance. Also I agree that children are growing up too fast (as in teh bus example), growing up fast adn learning at a fast pace are two different things and I think that sometimes peopel/parents/ teh general public forgets that. It's easy to see forget that a 3 year old that can read write and tell time and do all sorts of otehr things that third grader are doing, is not a 3rd grader/8 year old. (sorry if i go tteh age wrong there) and a 10 year old taking highschool adn college courses still isnt' a highschooler in ability they are but not age or development.
It is so easy to forget that just becasue tehy kearn beyond their years, they still are the year they are. (OT but putting preschoolers in clothes and lifestyles that are ususally represented by teens doesnt' make them teens or more mature. it just robs them of their innocence and youth IMO)

Yes, kindergarten is mandatory here. PreK (LA4, which is 4 yr olds) is not, but recommended. In MY area, I feel a child that does not attend Pre-K is at a disadvantage than children who go straight into kindy.

FTR, I have a brilliant 4 yr old (he has been tested, though not formally as he is not in the school system yet) who knows more than some children in K and probably even than some 1st graders, and I still am putting him in PreK, in fact I will be registering him today.

I dont believe for a second that even though I teach him/work with him, and that he knows the curriculum (and beyond) that they will teach in his Pre-K class, that he will not learn anything or be bored all of the time. I've worked with children (both gifted and children with challenges) in the last few years while I was in school and I know that even children who know most/all of a curriculum can stand to learn a lot in school. I myself am gifted, and often was in honors and AP (college level, while in high school) classes, and attended college in the summers before I graduated HS and I though sometimes I found myself bored, I can guarantee I learned a lot from said classes, despite knowing a lot of the curriculum.

I am shocked to see some schools do not require children to be in school until 6 or 7 years old, though, I have to admit.