Positive benefits of delaying kindergarten.

While the push at the Minnesota state legislature is to get kids into institutional education at earlier and earlier ages, 3 and 4, here's a WCCO news story and Rand Corporation study suggesting delaying kindergarten has significant educational benefits.

Here's a link to the WCCO story.

Is five too young for kindergarten?

Some parents now think six is the magic age for starting school, especially for boys.

Take Edina.

More than half the boys there with summer birthdays don’t go to kindergarten until they are six years old.

The same holds true for only 20 percent of the girls.

In kindergarten classes at Edina’s Highlands Elementary there is often more than a year difference in students’ ages.

Veteran teacher Katie Oberle says emotional readiness is the most important factor parents should consider when deciding when to send a child to school. She said,

“It’s sharing, it’s being able to follow directions, it’s being able to communicate,” she said.

As for why parents make the call for boys and not girls, Oberle says boys, as a group, often trail in key areas.

“Boys tend to be…a little less mature, but it mostly tends to be in their verbal language skills,” Oberle says.

Studies on the topic differ.

A 2006 University of California study says children who are older in kindergarten do better. They are placed in more advanced classes, and that advantage just builds as they get older.

 According to the Rand Corporation study:

Entering Kindergarten Later Significantly Boosts Test Scores at Entry

To understand the cognitive effects of entering kindergarten later, Datar looked at academic achievement as measured by math and reading test scores on standardized tests. The results indicate that delaying kindergarten entrance is associated with a significant increase in math and reading scores at kindergarten entry. A one-year delay in kindergarten entrance increases math and reading scores by 6 points and more than 5 points, respectively. Also, the findings suggest that previous studies that failed to account for the selection bias underestimate the effect of delaying kindergarten age.

Benefits Do Not Fade and Are Even Greater for Disadvantaged Children

As noted earlier, there is concern that any positive benefits may not persist and that forcing disadvantaged children to wait a year may thus be counter-productive. However, as the figure shows, these concerns seem unfounded.

Scores on standardized tests administered at two time points — once at the start of kindergarten and again at the end of first grade — were examined. The dots reflect the mean score for children entering at either age 5 or 6; as discussed earlier, we see that children entering later do better. The x’s reflect the gain in the test score across the two assessment periods. We find that the initial advantage not only persists but in fact increases by half a point in math and by a point in reading during the first two years in school. This suggests that delaying kindergarten entrance has a positive effect on test score gains in the early school years.

The figure also shows that the benefits of delaying kindergarten are even greater for children from poor families. Delaying kindergarten entrance from age 5 to age 6 increases the math and reading test score gains among poor children — the distance between the dots and the x’s. This is most notable in looking at math score gains — poor children entering at age 5 have almost no gain, while those entering at age 6 have a noticeable gain — but it is also true for reading scores. By contrast, both younger and older entrants from families that are not poor gain the same amount across testing periods.

Other studies, writings I've seen suggest that the academic benefits of delaying kindergarten disappear by the 3rd grade.  That's similar to the academic results of kids who attend preschool programs and all day kindergarten compared to students who don't.  It's a wash by the third grade as well.  If that's the case, then the added cost savings of students not attending kindergarten is a net plus.  I suspect another benefit is kids who delay kindergarten are better able to cope with the negative influences they encounter in an institutional learning setting.  (Other studies point to the more aggressive, anti-social behavior the more time kids spend in preschool programs.) 

The Minnesota legislature, in it's one size fits all approach to education, is pouring millions into incentivizing parents to put their children into preschool and all day kindergarten.  They may just be moving in the direction an increasing number of parents prefer not to go.

Burying their heads in the sand -- condom promoters.

I was on WCCO radio with John Williams yesterday morning regarding a Star Tribune story that reported the Pawlenty Administration refused to pursue federal condom dollars.

Williams, who's a dyed in the wool liberal, is incredulous that anybody could seriously be opposed to promoting condoms to kids in our schools. One's simply burying one's head in the sand.

I would argue the exact opposite is true. Those with their heads in the sand are the condom promoters. We have an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases and far too many teen out of wedlock births. What's been the approach to this epidemic over the past 30 to 40 years? Condoms, condoms and more condoms. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Condom promotion doesn't work because the implicit if not explicit message is kids will have sex and it's fine if they do. On the contrary what needs to happen is changing kids behavior. Having them wait to have sex until they are married. Yet of course marriage is never mentioned much less discussed as the proper place to to have sex.

Kids need to be given a vision for and an understanding of the beauty and wonderment of marriage. That a lifelong union is a beautiful and achievable goal. In their heart of hearts kids (and adults) desire that. But they're never given that message. Sex is presented as a sterile, function activity. It's a leisure sport. A form of entertainment with the goal being doing as much as possible without contracting a disease.

The vision for the good life, in the classical sense not modern narcissistic sense, understands sex is inextricably linked to marriage. The purpose and beauty of sex is fulfilled in that context.

Modern liberals don't see it that way. They generally don't understand what marriage is and definitely don't understand the purpose of sex.

The problem is they're foisting their vision of sex on kids today. The result is only more sickness, disease and broken hearts.

Interestingly, liberals argue, "Well, kids are going have sex anyway, so they better be safe." This a classic case of blaming kids. It suggests kids are animals in heat who have no control over their hormones and sexual organs. The fact is lots of kids haven't had sex in high school and there would be a lot more who wouldn't if they received the proper encouragement. We expect kids to do the right thing in other areas of their life why not with their sexual organs.

Of course, this mindset can also be applied to drug use, drinking and cigarettes. Well, kids are going to do it anyway so we better accept the fact and give up trying to encourage them to abstain.

Certainly, some kids will do the wrong thing whatever you tell them. Many of them end up in jail and prison or die early. But there are lots who will and we need to be encouraging them to do the right thing. That's where giving them a vision for marriage and the purpose of sex are so important. And that's where children of the 60s and 70s, the John Williams of the world, come up empty.

Star Trib columnist credits MFC with defeat of unhealthy sex ed bill

Nick Coleman gets everything else wrong.

We don't often agree with Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Nick Coleman, but he got one thing right in his June 13 column; he acknowledges that Governor Pawlenty’s firm opposition to comprehensive sex ed, and the DFL majority's backing down on it, were the result of MFC's mobilization of thousands of concerned parents who called the Governor and key legislators urging them to reject it.

Click Here to read column.

Click Here to listen to MFC Tom Prichard's interview on WCCO.

We also agree with Coleman that "mainstream parents" need to “make ourselves heard.” Please Nick, get as many parents involved as possible, because the more parents are informed of the unhealthy content in several sex education curricula, the easier it is to defeat.

Predictably, Coleman ignored our central theme; that teaching children sex activities such as anal and anal-oral sex is unhealthy. (An examination of several sex education curricula in Minnesota revealed the unhealthy content listed above. See Birds & Bees.)

We shouldn't be surprised then that Coleman called the sex education bill “moderate.” As Coleman quotes MFC statements that exposed the unhealthy curricula, we have to assume he believes teaching children about anal sex, and anal-oral sex is “moderate” as well.

MFC encourages parents to refer to comprehensive sex education as “unhealthy.” “Mainstream” parents understand that teaching this material to children grades 7-12 sex is unhealthy. Most legislators agree.

Also, the well-documented rise in STDs and STIs in Minnesota clearly indicates that current comp sex education is unhealthy as well. In fact, it is a colossal failure as more children have become infected.