Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on April 12, 2011

Click here to view bill details.

I fully support this bill as a mother with 2 daughters both fall birthdays, one is just 6 the youngest just 4. We moved from SC where there were no issues with their Sept 1st cutoff. In Michigan, the Dec 1st cutoff clearly has been allowed to go on to benefit certain affluent districts. These districts have parents with more means able to have their child go to preschool another year or a school funded young 5s program. Having these older children already entering K with an unofficial Sept 1sr cutoff allows those districts to achieve their high curriculum standards set by the NCLB. We need to make the cutoff date officially Sept 1st to equal the playing field and send the message that with todays curriculum most children need to be 5 before starting their formal education or else they will be brainwashed into believing they are not as bright simply because the curriculum does not match the majority at their developmental age.

The MEA gets the extra money and the taxpayers foot the bill. This is nothing but a taxpayer funded daycare center!

Once again we must force the child to adhere to the standing structures of education. There should not be an age nor a time period of learning. Children possess the abilities to learn at a very early age, including secondary languages. If the state is to compete on a global scale, it would be in the best interests to invest in the learning process early to generate intellectual resources. Currently, the state must import its intellectual resources as we do not promote the fields of science and technology. There should be a model which allows for parents to participate in the learning process of the child such as cyber-schools.

 

I directly impacted by Senate Bill 315 and 316 that would change the Kindergarten cut-off for the 2012-2013 school year. I have invested a great deal of time (attending mandatory meetings at the school, submitting paperwork for admission, touring schools) in an effort to secure my daughter a spot for the fall. My dedication paid off earlier this week when she daughter was selected by lottery to attend my school of choice. In the event that the bill becomes law, I will be hard pressed to find an acceptable pre-school for my daughter.  As a working mom, I'm sure you can appreciate how difficult this would be. So, I write to you today to not to take issue with the merits of the bill (moving the current enrollment date - under which the child must turn five on or before December 1 of the enrollment year to enter Kindergarten - up to a September 1 deadline), but to take issue with the timing of the proposed bill; in particular, that the proposed bill states it would be effective for this coming 2012-2013 school year - a mere five months away. Kindergarten registrations in my city is in February, Pre-School Registration is in April, this change should be delayed until the 2013-2014 school year so that families and preschools have time to plan for it -- practically and financially. Please consider how they will affect children and their parents.

 I agree with you. Either make it for the '13-'14 school year or put in a grandfather clause exempting those already enrolled. 60 Minutes recently aired a story about parents red-shirting (purposely holding back) kids that were born in the fall. Kids born in Sep, Oct and Nov, under current law, will be 4 at the start of kindergarten (K). Meanwhile, the kids born in the begining of the year will be turning 6 shortly after the fall born kids turn 5. This is a big disadvantage for the younger kids. That is a huge difference in those early crutial years and carries over for the remainder of their time in school. The book "Outliers" suggests that kids born in the first quarter (Jan, Feb, Mar) have a far better success rate in academics, sports and social skills as they are older, bigger and more mentally advanced. Being the older kid increases a kids self-esteem and therefore also their confidence. They are the first in their class to turn 10, 13, first to be old enough to drive (huge advantage when it comes to dating (self-esteem)), turn 18. The book "Outliers" also suggests that this carries over into adulthood and that kids born in the first quarter are more likely to be successful. The 60 Minutes piece noted that in one the schools they profiled, 80% of that schools 8th grade hockey team was born in the first quarter. This was not an isolated trend. This is why parents of fall born kids were red-shirting them, so they would not be the youngest in their class. So their kids would then be the advanced ones. Perhaps the reason why this bill exists!

Under current law, fall born kids would start K at age 4 and high school at 13. That's too young. Illinois' cut off date is September 1st. Ours should be too.

It doesn't matter how inconvenient parents may find this bill to be.  It is a good bill for kids, and that is the important thing.  By phasing it in over a three year period everyone is given a chance to adjust, including schools, who may have to add pre-kindergarten classes for children who have completed their pre-school options.  Parents need to look ahead in their children's lives to middle school and high school.  I taught middle school for 28 years, and the "older" students in their grade were much more equipped to handle not only the academics, but peer pressure, classroom behavior, and athletic readiness.  When youth get to high school, it is disconcerting to think that a 15 year old may be riding around in the car of a 16 year old who happens to be in the same grade.  Maturity counts for a lot at every level, and having the starting age for kindergarten change is a forward step toward helping provide that.

I think this is definitely a great law here. They have to put a time limit on this. If not so many parents would be trying to get their kids in which is not right at all here. www.xcopper**.*com/franchise

Is the legislature planning on passing this before the end of the year?