25 Comments - Amalia - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 12:28 pm: wait, they aren’t already required to be in school by age 6? I know some people who were put in kindergarten by just short of age 5. school is a good thing. get to it earlier! - titan - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 12:35 pm: If people hold them out to 7, then they are 1 to 2 years behind the rest of the kids - Loop Lady - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 12:45 pm: A childs mind is pretty malleable for good or bad by age seven according to child mind is pretty mallable for both good and bad according to child psychologists…get them in preschool by age four and kindergarten by age six…boys are routinely less school ready by age five, so six is a good compromise… - Loop Lady - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 12:46 pm: sorry, my computer is acting up today… - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 12:55 pm: I haven’t read the bill but if there is no way to get an exception to this I would be opposed to it. My son had cancer and was right in the middle of intense treatments when he was supposed to start kindergarten. If this were the law at the time and if there were no exceptions we would have been forced to put our son in school. That’s not acceptable. There are legitimate reasons sometimes to delay starting school. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 12:58 pm: I would lower the age to five. Waiting until first grade will leave the child behind most of the other students. More is taught and expected to be learned at the kindergarten level than, say, thirty years ago. - Chavez-respecting Obamist - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 12:58 pm: It should be 4 with mandatory preschool. While we’re at it, foreign language classes should start in elementary school as well. - Lil Enchilada - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 1:30 pm: I agree Chavez! - Just Observing - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 1:32 pm: I don’t have kids… but if I did I would want them in school by age 5. That said, there are some parents that believe, for one reason or another, that their child is not ready for school at age five or six and that it is in the best interest of the child to hold a year or two. - nobody - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 1:48 pm: The state is not paying what it owes for education now. This will only cause the disparity in school funding to become greater. It might be a good theoretical goal, but Illinois has proven that it is not interested in paying for a quality education. Prorating General State Aid is unconscionable but especially when adding additional mandates that they do not intend to fund. Sad situation in the 5th richest state in the union. Ralph Martire has a pan that would address this fiscal crisis. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 2:04 pm: Another unfunded mandate. - OneMan - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 2:33 pm: I voted no. I seems like a good idea, but you know what having some kids start a year later is not a bad idea and giving parents some flexibility on that seems logical to me. In scouts I have dealt with some kids who started school late and for them it was a good idea. It isn’t for everyone for someone who started school ‘early’ as it were (October birthday) I would have to say some early socialization stuff would have been easier if I was not 10 months younger than some of my classmates. A 14 it isn’t a huge difference, a 6 it can be. - Area Man - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 2:40 pm: More kids in school = more union teachers. How could it be a bad thing? And bring back free preschool while we are at it. - Just The Way It Is One - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 2:44 pm: Illinois is a smart State with smart kids. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Educationally, 7 is just fine (plus where in God’s Green Earth do we have MORE funding to expend on an unnecessarily increased number of school children? No. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 3:24 pm: My kid is starting preschool at 3. I don’t think that would work for everyone but 7 is too old to be just getting started. So is 6 for that matter. - Esquire - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 3:31 pm: Where are the parents? Does the state have to rear all of the children? Perhaps this should start at the maternity hospital nursery. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 3:45 pm: I say the state should be providing free in vitro audio recordings for the student to be. Digital, of course. (snark) - ed - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 3:49 pm: There’s solid research showing how important early childhood education is and how it can affect a child’s lifetime education. Those kids need to be in school. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 4:18 pm: - dupage dan - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 3:45 pm: “I say the state should be providing free in vitro audio recordings for the student to be. Digital, of course. (snark)” If the State did it, it would be this: http://www.victor-victrola.com/external.jpg - geronimo - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 4:41 pm: I voted yes but have to wonder in a state so strapped with Education costs (and not paying what it should be paying now!), where the money is going to come from. In my community theyve gone to all day kindergarten from 1/2 day, all the while wringing hands about where the next dollar will come from. Of course young children’s minds are most receptive to learning and are eager to do so………but wanting and paying for are, in intelligent peoples’ minds, often not always compatible. - Ruby - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 5:00 pm: Investing in preschool and early childhood education for underprivileged children reduces school drop-out rates, unemployment, and crime. We really can’t afford not to help meet the needs of these young children. - Wumpus - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 7:07 pm: Changing it is not a bad thing. Spending priorities are so screwy. Of course, it probably won’t matter since the parent(s) of these kids most likely don’t care anyway. - thechampaignlife - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 7:13 pm: How does someone not have cost data on this? Doesn’t someone somewhere know the age of all kindergarteners? It would be those that are 7 at the start of the year that would be shifted one year earlier. And there shouldn’t be a long term cost increase because they should be graduating a year earlier. And for those not ready, their parents could home school them or find some other way to comply without starting full public school. - mythoughtis - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 7:28 pm: Pretty sure there aren’t that many children who aren’t in school by age 6 already. So not understanding the issue with the cost…. because they will eventually be in school. It can’t change the class size all that much for the start up year. Demoralized… I’m sure that there would be exceptions for a case like yours. There are children of all age battling cancer who are tutored until they are physically able to go to school. Even tutoring would be on hold if need be. But most kids are bored in the hospital and might be up to some one on one tutoring. Both of my children started at age 5 1/2(both birthdays after the cut-off). I started when the cut off was December 1st, and being a November birthday, was the youngest at my class at age 4. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 9, 13 @ 8:02 pm: @mythoughtis: I was 4 when I started kindergarten as the cut-off was also December 1 when I started. I’m not arguing about the age. I’m arguing about my right to do what I think is best for my child. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.