Why we don't need 4 year old kindergarten

      After hearing that the school district is considering 4 year old kindergarten, I feel compelled to respond.  I have tremendous respect for Dr. Schroeder but must disagree with him on this issue.  We visited this issue a year or two ago, reviewed the studies and got a lot of community input, pro and con on the issue.  It was voted down 7-0 if my memory serves me correctly.  I in fact attended the final meeting by phone from MIT where my daughter was completing her degree after only 3 1/2 years.  Why is that related?  When our daughter was at Tess Corners, we considered moving her up a year, skipping a grade.  After the discussions with the School District personnel who were all very helpful, we decided against it.  Looking back at that decision, it just reinforces that we made the right decision for the following reasons.  Our daughter still excelled in school but also was able to gain leadership responsibility in student council that I doubt she would have been offered if she had been moved up. We probably should have pushed to have her moved up a year in math and / or science but that could have happened anyway.  She was able to take 7 AP courses  which I've always felt are important for kids to take.  We want our kids to get into a structured environment way too soon or maybe we want daycare for free.  They are only 4 year olds. Unstructured play is just as important as structured school play.   I just don't buy the long term benefits of this program.

        The incentive from the state is wrong on this issue.  They pay way too much for school districts to implement this which makes it very attractive finacially.  Instead of four year old kindergarten, we need to challenge kids a lot more and keep them interested in math and science especially in middle school where we tend to lose them.  Thanks.