A lot of the articles I've read on this topic make it seem like most parents who hold back their children do it out of a selfish desire to make sure their kids do better than everyone else in school. I think that is the rare case. Kindergarten has changed drastically since most parents were in school themselves. And I believe many parents are concerned about leaving active, imaginative children stuck behind desks. If Kindergarten today is what 1st grade used to be, then perhaps it's more developmentally appropriate for older kids to be in those classrooms.

It depends on the child and his or her previous experiences. It seems to help male children better (my observation). Varying start dates among school districts may not help families that have greater mobility.

I formerly taught kindergarten, and what I observed was that children who entered before they had reached a certain degree of maturity did not do as well. They frequently ended up being retained and having to repeat kindergarten, which sometimes had a negative emotional impact on the child. In cases where parents refused to retain a child, the child went on to first grade and continued to have difficulty mastering the curriculum, again resulting in a negative experience.

Maturity does not always correlate with age, however, and for that reason I think parents should be allowed to continue to choose when their child enters school, with the caveat that the choice should be a responsible and informed one, reflecting the child's true level of maturity, and that parents should be discouraged from using kindergarten as free babysitting or childcare, which unfortunately some of them still do.

All the kindergarten teachers I know were concerned when the first grade standards were moved down to kindergarten, because it meant the kids who were borderline in maturity when they entered were at a disadvantage. There was also a concern that kindergarten was no longer a place where kids had sufficient time to play, explore, and simply process the new experience of being at school.

Every parent and teacher wants a child's first experience of school to be positive and encouraging. If a child's first exposure to a formal school setting results in a constant struggle to keep up, that impression may stay with them and negatively impact their future performance and their self esteem. What we really need is an effective and accurate way of assessing individual maturity, not an arbitrary rule about school entry based on age alone.

In my 30+ years experience as a teacher, children developmentally behind do not "even out" by third grade. They are at a distinct disadvantage into middle school and sometimes later. Entering Kindergarten should not be a "child care" consideration, but I do think that given our modern society the states, communities, and schools should look at and consider offering child care; making it possible for parents to make an unbiased decision and be more open to what the child care provider has to say about their child's readiness for Kindergarten.

This poll seems to question the notion that starting children earlier in pre-K will help them more academically. In one instance we’re being asked to consider starting children earlier for academic success in another poll we’re being ask to consider if children would do better if they start school at an older age. I think this would be a good question to resolve since our political leaders want to allocate billions of dollars to pre-K initiatives.

Having taught Kindergarten and pre-kindergarten for 17 of the 45 years that I've been teaching, I'm constantly amazed at this 'debate' that keeps re-occuring. Age does not matter; readiness does. If a child is in a non-threatening learning environment, he/she has a better chance of maturing and learning.

My students in kindergarten did learn to read when they were ready; they used numbers functionally (dividing up snacks evenly, etc.) I was fortunate enough for several years to be part of an ungraded primary. Here students from K - 3 were intermixed into homerooms. (There were advantages to the one room schoolhouse.) Everyone learned. Some students were in the 4 year program for 3 years, some for 5. The kids themselves really had no clue what "grade" they were in. Some parents didn't either!

Our State (Illinois) now has the '5 by September 1' rule. No matter WHERE the rule is set; someone is the youngest in the class. Now it's the September babies... We should set out eyes more on how can we learn without pressure, understanding the child's natural curiosity about all things!

Parents will always do what they think is best for their own child. But holding borderline children back is not what's best for education in general--it just gives schools permission to continue transforming kindergarten into first grade. It's time to stop pushing academic "standards" down to lower and lower grades. Schools should provide developmentally appropriate kindergarten programs that respond to the needs of individual children, not expect children to fit into the increasingly academic curriculum.

In my almost 40 years of teaching primary grades a few things have become evident. A couple of the more relevant points are 1)that children entering Kindergarten at ages between 4 1/2 and 5 1/2 are at very different stages of development. Age at entry does not necessarily determine readiness. Life experience and gender (sorry, but it's pretty evident) do; and 2) families who have enough attention to spare from working (or whatever else they do during the day) will find a way to provide care for their children - no matter their financial circumstances - families who don't, won't.

As a teacher in California I have been watching the legal seesaw over age at Kindergarten entry with some interest for the past ten years or so. The most interesting component of this saga is that it has taken that many years, and there is still no change. Students entering Kindergarten must still be 5 by December 1, just as was required when I entered Kindergarten in 1954 for crying out loud!!!

The major difference between my Kindergarten experience and that of my current students is expectations. In '54 class we K students had daily inspections for lice, cleanliness, ringworm, and such. We sang, engaged in visual memory tasks, did woodwork with real saws and hammers, danced, napped, and generally developed the skills necessary for later academic success. Now students are considered behind if they enter K without having a whole litany of academic skills including counting and knowledge of the alphabet.

One of the points in favor of the latest effort of the lawmakers here toward changing the entry age for Kindergarten is the concomitant provision for pre-K to be made available to children who would have been eligible for K before the age was changed. That takes care of the argument that parents "need" them to be in school (for three hours!???!!!) over childcare issues.

Personally I like the way New Zealand used to do the first school experience. Children entered school on their fifth birthday, whenever that fell in the year. They were then moved along to the "primary" grades when they were considered ready, whether that was the June after they entered or at the end of the next year. That seemed to allow for those students who were developmentally ready to begin earlier and those who were not to have more time without any attached stigma.

One more voice in the wilderness.

Age and the efforts to match it with educational achievement is pure hogwash.

It's not the children that are a problem - they are born learners. The adults are trying to make over the world in their own biased image.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Can we please try to focus on learning and not "education", the filling of empty vessels with facts; or insuring the adult specified content is covered (are we painting?; or chunking facts into mass produced bits to be "taught" to a timetable.

Many states nowadays have pre-K. In states like Louisiana that have Sept 30 cut off dates and start dates in mid August, the youngest babies are just a touch over 3 and a half when they start school, meaning 4 and a half in kindergarten. It is too young. Where uniforms are forced on the children it is even worse because babies who should be wearing a Sesame Street T-shirt or a ruffly sunsuit while they play in a sandpile is instead swaddled in a dismal pair of Size 5 uniform pants and a polo shirt that goes to their knees and expected to stand in line for morning assembly. Some of these babies are barely toilet trained, can't safely cross the street and need a nap! And in the inner city where older siblings start doing sibling care at 8 or 9, getting a near toddler walked to school safely, well, it is more than they can safely handle.

Children should not be in formal structured programs until they are 5 or 6 unless they are very bright and clearly ready. With NCLB choking the life and creativity out of children, the requirements for Kindergarten and even Pre-K involve a lot of drill and kill so that the standardized tests can be passed. A bright 10th grader recently told me that all her creativity had been forced out by the third grade. That is when a child's ability to create should be jelling into some real skills that might develop into a career, not when education becomes something where you just do what the teacher tells you until you get the paperwork.

It is ok if a child starts his formal education at 6 instead of 4. This includes disadvantaged children. They can be provided with a quaility day care program with no academic requirements if mama has to go to work and they will be more mature when they start Pre-K. A 6 year old is ready to sit down and learn. That way he will be older when he starts high school and thus, a bigger and better athlete. I just can't see 13 year old children in the 9th grade. There is nothing wrong with being 19 or 20 when you graduate! It would keep kids out of the full time work force longer and create more mature college students.

But give the programs a little flexibility. If a chld is obviously gifted, reading and eager for formal learning, maybe she should start kindergarten at 4 and there are some parents who start gifted children in private settings at that age simply because they are ready. But for the average child, the age should be a solid 5 or better before the rigors of formal education are thrust on them

The exception, of course, is kids with disabilities. In order for them to have a chance of achieving at their best they need extra time with therapists and teachers at a very early age, even as young as 6 months. It has been shown that early intervention for these kids makes a major difference. But even then, the programs should be with reference to the child's age, play oriented and happy places,not drudgery and extreme structure.