According to a report in the Chicago Tribune on March 20, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Chicago, and Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois are supporting legislation now in the Illinois General Assembly to lower the age children would be required to attend school from 7, where it is currently, to 6 or even 5.
In the graph above of the US, we changed Alabama from 7 to 6, since the Tribune reported the state had changed the compulsory attendance age last year. Therefore, the map reflects compulsory attendance laws in the state for 2010, except Alabama.
An additional discrepancy because of the latency of education data: The Tribune said 26 states have compulsory attendance ages of 6, while the National Center for Education Statistics reported only 25 states in the 2010 school year, if we add Alabama. We use fourth-grade data below, so changes made to the age since 2010 should not affect our analysis.
Other than those few changes, this map is fairly constant. Between 2000 and 2010, only five states changed their laws: Vermont in 2002 lowered it from 7 to 6; Connecticut in 2004 lowered it from 7 to 5; Colorado and Nebraska lowered it from 7 to 6 in mid-decade; and Wyoming raised it from 6 to 7 in 2004.
It’s fair to say, therefore, that there couldn’t be much research on what effect changing the compulsory attendance age would have on students or schools. If we compare states, we can speculate as to the effect of a lower compulsory attendance age, but the point remains, there are no controlled studies that examine the effects of changing the law, and I would like to think our legislators aren’t just spinning their wheels. That said, let’s take a look at the report.
A quick glance at the evidence cited
State representatives, senators, the mayor, and the governor contend the change would address “a devastating pattern of elementary-grade absenteeism in Chicago Public Schools and across the state,” according to the Tribune’s report. Here is the Tribune being dramatic again with its language. Across “the state,” elementary-student truancy doesn’t actually devastate our schools, I’m quite sure.
However, once we admit we probably can’t save the world from gloom and doom by forcing the few kids, who wouldn’t attend kindergarten regularly, into the seats, the suggestion of lowering the compulsory attendance age looks pretty good. The article cites research at the University of Chicago:
An ongoing study by the University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research has found that second-graders who attended school regularly during the earliest grades scored higher on reading tests.
But this difference is not tied to any changes in the compulsory attendance laws, and it actually can’t be tied to the law, since many 5- and 6-year-olds in Illinois already attend school regularly.
I suppose we could compare reading scores in states where the compulsory attendance age is 5 or 6 to those where it is 7 or 8. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as “The Nation’s Report Card,” posts reading test data by state for fourth graders.
The NAEP Reading Test is being given to fourth graders this year, so the last data available are from 2011. A survey of state-level data for the NAEP reading scores reveals that of the 17 states with a compulsory attendance age of 7 or 8, four states (24%) came in below the national public-school reading average and six states (35%) came in above it. On the other hand, of the 33 states with a compulsory attendance age of 5 or 6, 10 states (30%) posted reading scores below the national public-school average and 15 states (45%) posted higher scores than the national public-school average.
What I believe this comparison shows is a correlation. States that require school attendance at an earlier age tend to post higher average reading scores than states where students aren’t forced to be in school until age 7 or 8. This is evidence only of a correlation, though, not a causation. As noted, many 5- and 6-year-olds attend school regularly in states where the strict letter of the law would not require them to be in school until age 7 or 8. Using the NAEP results, it’s not possible to distinguish between students who were in school in kindergarten and those who weren’t.
The legislation now under consideration
SB1307, sponsored by Sen Kimberly A Lightford, Democrat of Maywood, would lower the compulsory attendance age to 5. It cleared the Senate Education Committee on the strength of an 8-5 vote on Feb. 27.
HB2762, sponsored by first-term Representative Sue Scherer, Democrat of Decatur, would lower the compulsory attendance age to 6. It cleared the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee with a 9-2 vote on March 13.
Because of a fiscal note on the bills, legislators may come to realize that finding funds for kindergarten classes for 5-year-olds can be difficult, especially as schools brace for cuts they know are coming next year. As we pointed out, though, the cost of forcing kids to be in school, compared to what it costs to provide services for them when they’re in school at age 5 anyway, might not be that high.