To the editor:

Re: Children Don’t Benefit From Early Education (letter to the editor Oct. 25 Capital News).

Letter writer David Buckna presents research supporting his position that full-day kindergarten is not beneficial to children, and may even be harmful.

While a wealth of research is readily available to anyone with an Internet connection claiming the opposite, that full-day kindergarten indeed delivers advantages over half-days, perhaps we are overlooking the most important aspect—quality.

We selected full-day kindergarten for our son not because it was “convenient,” as the writer suggests is the primary motivator for parents, but because the school and the programm were right for him.

The writer cites therapist Steve Biddulf saying, “…full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds is too long….” Such a generalization seems irresponsible. Full day kindergarten was never too long for my son, who turned five the day after the academic year began. I accept that some five-year-olds are not ready to be away from their caregivers for more than a few hours, but my son was not one of them.

Also, the writer quotes Biddulf stating, “(children) should begin Grade 1 at age seven, when their fine motor skills are ready for pencil and paper work.”

Astounding. Perhaps some children have not yet developed the skills necessary for pencil and paper work by age six, the usual Grade 1 starting age, but this can’t be the norm. How then did all 14 children in my son’s kindergarten class, most of them aged five, independently write short poems, solve addition and subtraction problems on paper, and compose stories by second term? To delay pencil and paper work to age seven for everyone is not only a narrow view, it would fail these children.

The writer claims that: “In kindergarten there is less opportunity for free play, which is crucial for a child’s development.” Again, not my experience. Due to a strong parent-teacher partnership, I was fortunate to participate in my son’s class as often as I wished. I witnessed learning that was fun and appropriately challenging, I saw children who were very happy and I watched as they formed rewarding relationships with one another and their teachers. Free play was encouraged within the daily structure, and parents who were able to attend joined in wholeheartedly. Academically, socially, and emotionally, the children achieved a great deal. Because the programme integrated specialty teachers in drama, music, French and P.E., the students experienced incredible variety where play and learning happened simultaneously. Today, these children are well adjusted and absolutely love going to school. For me, that is the most compelling evidence there is.

Such positive results may not be a direct result of full-day over half-day. Perhaps this is simply what happens when schools are able to invest in excellent programming, effective tools, the right teachers and ideal class sizes, thereby creating an environment where children can learn and have fun all at the same time.

We should recognize that School District 23 superintendent Hugh Gloster stated in the original article (Education: Policy Change Adopted, Oct. 16 Capital News) that the additional time being offered in full-day kindergarten will not come with new learning outcomes.

He stated: “This is not an attempt to add new curriculum…Kindergarten will still be a play-based philosophy….” As a parent who considered public school kindergarten options, that is disappointing. Perhaps an opportunity for curriculum enrichment is being missed.

Finally, if the issue is whether the B.C. Ministry of Education would better serve students by allocating the funds destined for full-day kindergarten to other areas that have suffered cutbacks, based purely on what I have read and heard, it seems the writer is correct. I’m just grateful that a school like Aberdeen Hall, with its enriched full-day kindergarten programme, provided the right option for us.

Lorraine Neal,

Kelowna