Connect with us

Connecticut

New CT law on kindergarten age cutoff causing confusion

Published

on

New CT law on kindergarten age cutoff causing confusion


Moriah Lopez has a son who turned 4 in December, which previously would have meant that he would be eligible for kindergarten this fall.

New legislation passed in 2023, however, now requires that kindergarten students be 5 years old by Sept. 1, instead of the previous cutoff of Jan. 1. This change sent Lopez into a spiral for weeks, trying to figure out her next steps.

The mother of two didn’t know why the law changed. She didn’t know if the preschool her son attended would have space for him for another year or if she would need to pay for a year of child care. She worried whether her family could afford child care or if she or her husband would need to quit their job to take care of their youngest child.

She said she struggled to get answers from New Haven Public Schools, where her two sons are enrolled.

Advertisement

“It’s been me trying to navigate everything,” Lopez said. “It’s been a lot of self-research on why this even was passed. The [district] website is just very confusing in general. [Information] possibly could have been on there, but I just couldn’t figure it out.”

Her confusion likely isn’t unique, as more than 9,000 children in Connecticut may be affected by the new age requirement.

Developmental experts, and even Lopez, agree with the change, as Connecticut joins the majority of other states that require kindergartners to be 5.

The problem is how the law is being implemented.

The state Department of Education has taken a hands-off approach and left it up to municipalities to navigate the shift, requiring that districts provide a waiver process with written parental consent and some type of age-appropriate assessment as the only criteria. This means there isn’t any uniformity across the state in how districts are handling the waiver and assessment process.

Advertisement

For the upcoming 2024-25 school year, some districts are requiring only a written request from a parent or guardian for the waiver, as they plan to implement an assessment plan by the following year. Others have already set up full-fledged processes to analyze a student’s social and emotional behaviors. Waiver request timelines also vary, with some cutoff dates in February and others accepting requests on a rolling basis well into the summer.

“There are some things that districts are doing in common, but each district is unique in how they are implementing the waiver process … and I think that the way the legislation was written, and why we have that, is [to create a process that is] fitting the context of every community,” said Fran Rabinowitz, the executive director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents.

Still, education leaders have voiced concerns about the unfunded mandate, noting that the shift comes at a time when the number of pre-K slots is the lowest it’s been in nearly two decades and it is difficult to open more spaces for pre-K classes that are already at their limits.

“What I worry about, and what has been brought up to me, not necessarily by superintendents, is the whole idea of equity. In the large cities, for example, are all of those parents going to be well-informed on the waiver process and how they can apply for a waiver?” Rabinowitz said. “Are we certain that the children that are not 5 by Sept. 1 are going to continue to receive a preschool experience?”

And with every district using different policies and communication methods, some parents, like Lopez, are living Rabinowitz’s worry — struggling with navigating school websites, finding the best resources and receiving the right information.

Advertisement

“While I was frustrated with the lack of communication from [my school district], I get it at the same time. It’s hard for them to navigate and figure it out when they’re responsible for so many different schools and so many different children,” Lopez said. “But what about other families? … I just have a lot of concerns for everyone else.”

A report released on Feb. 12 fromThe Connecticut Project Action Fund, a social policy advocacy group, said only 60% of schools districts had “updated, easily accessible kindergarten entry [policies] online,” as of late January.

In 2022-23, there were over 34,800 kindergartners in Connecticut, and about 41% of those students were enrolled in just 25 school districts across the state.

The Connecticut Mirror contacted several of those districts with the highest kindergarten enrollments to illustrate how vastly requirements differ, how different the approaches are to ease transitions for families and what concerns education leaders across the state.

Advertisement

SHAHRZAD RASEKH

/

CT MIRROR

Kelly Taylor helps her kindergarten students with their classwork at Breakthrough Magnet School in Hartford.

Waivers, timelines

Many districts across the state, like Bridgeport, East Hartford and Norwalk, are embedding waiver requests into their existing online kindergarten registration process. Others — like Hartford, Trumbull, West Hartford, New Haven and Milford — have separate forms or surveys for parents to fill out if they’re applying for early kindergarten.

The assessment process itself is where districts’ approaches start to vary.

Advertisement

Some districts are requiring only a written parental request. Westport and East Hartford districts plan to use this process as a transition and work toward an appropriate assessment by the 2025-26 school year.

Districts like Bridgeport and Trumbull are requesting that parents use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Milestone Checklist during the registration process to determine whether their child is developmentally ready for kindergarten. Similarly, Hartford Public Schools released a 12-question survey, and Fairfield parents will receive the Connecticut Kindergarten Domain Readiness Skills rubric. School staff will review the responses prior to admission.

Stamford, New Britain, Norwalk, West Hartford and Southington are a few of the districts that have established more extensive processes, requiring expert assessments to analyze motor, concept and language skills, and academic, emotional and social needs.

Some districts, like New Haven and Glastonbury, are offering a hybrid-like process of what other districts are doing where, depending on the child’s pre-K experiences or their birthdate, they may have to undergo an assessment or be granted automatic admission.

In New Haven, if a child with a birthday past Sept. 1 is enrolled in the district’s pre-K program, “they will automatically move on to kindergarten,” according to the district website. For students not enrolled in the program with a late birthday, they must undergo an assessment process.

Advertisement

Glastonbury Public Schools’ website says that any student who turns 5 before Oct. 31 will be eligible to start kindergarten this year, and for those born between Nov. 1 and Dec. 31, waivers will “rarely [be] granted.”

For parents considering kindergarten waivers, the timeline to request consideration can range from late February through early July, depending on the district.

West Hartford may have one of the earliest cutoffs — written requests were required by Feb. 1.

Hartford and East Hartford have cutoffs on March 1 and May 15, respectively. Stamford, Groton and New Britain have cutoffs in early summer, ranging from June through July. Bridgeport, Trumbull and Norwalk plan to consider requests on a rolling basis.

Most districts said the timeline between requesting a waiver, undergoing an assessment and hearing a decision from school leadership will be about a week.

Advertisement

For districts conducting assessments, many have scheduled appointments — typically on weekends — when children can be evaluated. Some appointment processes opened in the fall, like in Stamford. Other districts like Groton, New Britain and Norwalk will conduct assessments in February through the early spring.

Transition process

Despite differences in the kindergarten enrollment and waiver process, one similarity among districts is the willingness to work with affected families to ease the transition.

For some districts, that’ll be easier than for others.

In Groton, for example, the district has always screened its kindergarten and incoming students. In the late 2010s, Groton Public Schools created a program called “Transitional Kindergarten” after recommendations from several educators. The program targets 4-year-olds with late birthdays and provides a kindergarten-like experience, with before- and after-school programs, bus transportation and lunch, but at a developmentally appropriate level. Children can be recommended to kindergarten or first grade after enrollment in the program, depending on their readiness.

“I am talking to legislators about how can we make this a golden opportunity for our state to educate our littlest learners. I feel like Groton is ahead of the curve … because we are offering a transition-K program,” Superintendent Susan Austin said, adding that other district leaders have been asking about the model and how to replicate it. “I feel like this is an opportunity.”

Advertisement

Fairfield plans to implement a similar program with the launch of a new tuition-based full-day pre-K for students enrolled in the district’s Early Childhood Center.

“Current 4-year-old students impacted by the change in kindergarten legislation will be given priority to attend the full day pre-K program,” said Superintendent Michael Testani.

Rabinowitz is enthusiastic about transitional kindergarten or universal pre-K models but added that the main obstacle boils down to funding.

“There is concern about the ability for all children to have an educational experience. If they’re not ready, or if they’re not old enough for kindergarten, is there going to be room for them in the preschool? And in some cases, the preschools are not run by the school system,” Rabinowitz said. “I have no problem with 5 years old by September. I just wish [the state legislature] had given us a little bit more time to do this. If it had been [implemented by] 2025, I think we could have better had all the ducks in a row for that, and hopefully, more early care funding.”

The report from The Connecticut Project also surveyed district leaders across the state, and with 98 responses from Connecticut superintendents, the majority echoed Rabinowitz’s support of delaying implementation for at least another year and a general agreement toward increased funding for early childhood education subsidies.

Advertisement

Statewide data show that the number of publicly funded slots for infant and toddler care dropped by 3,490 — about 17% — from 2022 to 2023. The state has 49,898 preschool slots, a 4% reduction from 2022 and the lowest number since at least 2005, according to a report released by research and advocacy organization Connecticut Voices for Children earlier this year.

In Connecticut, child care costs on average $18,156 for center-based care and $11,955 in a family child care home annually. This means Connecticut has the third-most expensive early care costs, behind only Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts, the report said.

Many high enrollment districts, often urban centers, are anticipating hundreds of waiver requests, and some district leaders say they plan to approve a majority of the applications.

In Bridgeport, the district currently educates over 1,500 kindergarten students, and about 500 of those children have birthdays between Sept. 2 and Jan. 1.

“We project there are closer to 600 children this new legislation may affect,” spokesperson Lindsay Davis said. “Families have been calling to inquire about being able to enroll their children in kindergarten. We anticipate many families will choose to send their children to kindergarten next year. … The flexibility of kindergarten enrollment will minimize the potential of a financial and scheduling burden for families that were not anticipating another year of pre-K or child care.”

Advertisement

In Hartford, the district educates about 1,200 kindergartners.

“Our School Choice application period only recently opened, so it’s still early to determine kindergarten applications and enrollment for the 2024-25 school year,” spokesperson Julia Skrobak said. “There are currently 279 current pre-K-4 students in our schools with birthdays after Sept. 1. We anticipate the majority of those families will apply for a waiver.”

In New Britain, there’s about 750 kindergarten public school students, said Kristie Bourdoulous, the pre-K-5 academic and accountability officer, adding that about 30% of the district’s kindergartners were born after Sept. 1.

“We do anticipate interest in the waiver, especially in the first year of this new law,” Bourdoulous said. “We heavily marketed changes to admission policy and the process for requesting early enrollment to families with children currently enrolled in our BOE pre-K program and our community partner programs. At this time, we have over 100 families that have responded to our early entry request form with more than 70 students requesting early entry. … Of the students we know about enrolled in BOE or community partners, approximately 90% of those families are requesting early entry. We anticipate many of those requests being approved.”

Representatives from other high-enrollment districts, including Waterbury and New Haven, did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

This story was originally published by The Connecticut Mirror on Feb. 18, 2024.





Source link

Connecticut

Connecticut Deserves Better than the Housing Bill That Arrived Overnight

Published

on

Connecticut Deserves Better than the Housing Bill That Arrived Overnight


Last week’s special session was supposed to be simple, a short return to Hartford to make sure families relying on SNAP and essential programs could continue putting food on their tables. Our food banks are now reporting levels of demand higher than at any time in recent memory, which should have been the primary focus of the session. But as often happens, something else was slipped into the spotlight. Gov. Ned Lamont reintroduced a housing bill he had already vetoed once, and in the span of three rushed days, from Wednesday to Friday, HB 8002 was pushed through with almost no time for the public or legislators to meaningfully digest what was inside.

The bill is being presented as a solution to Connecticut’s housing crisis, homelessness, and affordability collapse. But let us say what so many residents, advocates, and even legislators know but hesitate to say publicly. This is not a homelessness bill. This is not an affordability bill. This is, once again, a development and zoning bill that continues the same pattern we have seen for years in Connecticut, a pattern where developers walk away smiling while our seniors, working class families, and lower income communities continue to fall into homelessness or displacement.

Months ago, I wrote about the Fair Share and Transit Oriented Development agenda and why it was being misrepresented as a form of housing justice. HB 8002 recycles many of the same concepts, just under new headings. Yes, some pieces of the bill include positive ideas. But the core structure is still a one size fits all approach that weakens public process, expands “as of right” zoning, ties municipal funding to compliance with state preferred planning models, and does very little to create truly affordable housing for those who need it most.

A bill built for suburbs, not cities

Let us be real. HB 8002 is aimed squarely at smaller towns. It creates penalties for municipalities that refuse to opt into regional housing plans or fail to submit required housing growth frameworks. It ties access to state grants to adherence with zoning models that many suburban towns have resisted for decades. The intention is to push “exclusive” municipalities to participate in housing growth, which is a fair goal in principle.

Advertisement

But the mechanism matters. And here, the mechanism is coercion through funding, the weakening of protest petitions, and the removal of public process in key zoning decisions. “As of right” development in transit areas, summary review for certain middle housing types, and restrictions on who can object to zoning changes combine to silence residents, especially those in communities vulnerable to displacement.

The impact of these reforms is wildly different in a town that builds one multifamily project per decade compared to a city like Stamford that has undergone one of the fastest and most aggressive building booms in the state. Stamford does not need this bill. Stamford is not a town refusing to build. Stamford has been flooded with development for fifteen years. We have built to the point of destabilizing entire neighborhoods, especially in the South End and West Side.

Families were pushed out by property taxes inflated by surrounding “luxury” buildings. Developers bought affordable homes, let them rot for years, then declared them blight to replace them with high priced rentals. Our seniors were priced out, our retirees pushed to Bridgeport, and our working class made invisible by glossy marketing brochures calling $2,500 one bedrooms “attainable.”

When the Fair Share and TOD lobbyists told us that Stamford was not building enough, many of us laughed at the absurdity. Stamford already exceeds the numbers they spent years waving in our faces. What we lack is not units. What we lack is affordability, stability, and protections for the people most at risk of becoming homeless.

Yet none of that is the focus of HB 8002.

Advertisement

What Is good in the bill

To be fair and honest, the bill does contain provisions worth supporting. We can acknowledge them without pretending the overall direction is right.

First, the ban on hostile architecture is long overdue. Spikes, anti-sleeping benches, aggressive landscaping to keep people away, these tools dehumanize the unhoused and create a culture of cruelty. Banning them is a moral victory.

Second, the portable shower and laundry pilot for people experiencing homelessness is a humane step forward, though still too small for the need.

Third, Section 32 prohibits the use of revenue management software that manipulates rental prices. Companies like RealPage artificially inflate rents statewide through algorithmic collusion. This measure is genuinely important.

Fourth, the bill expands Fair Rent Commissions to every municipality with at least 15,000 residents, which is crucial for tenant protection, although municipal enforcement without state oversight remains inconsistent.

Advertisement

Fifth, landlords can no longer evict tenants for late payment if their online rent payment system malfunctions, a small but meaningful safeguard that prevents avoidable homelessness.

Sixth, Section 43 allows housing authorities and nonprofits to purchase existing buildings and deed restrict them as affordable. This could help preserve affordability in places where speculation has turned housing into a casino.

Seventh, new safety requirements like annual elevator inspections and mobile home park fire hydrant reporting help protect elderly tenants and low income families living in neglected complexes.

All of these are good steps. But we cannot confuse these elements with the bill’s central function.

The problem at the center

Once again, the bill’s heart is a planning and zoning framework meant to accelerate development, expand “as of right” approvals, and reduce the public’s ability to contest projects that may not serve their communities.

Advertisement

Section 24, which weakens protest petitions, is clearly aimed at places like Stamford. Paired with “as of right” language in transit districts, it effectively removes one of the strongest tools residents have to slow or challenge harmful development. And when you combine that with the influence of groups like People Friendly Stamford, whose leadership has been tied to developer law firms that spent years suing the Board of Representatives and losing, it becomes impossible to ignore what is happening. These groups claim to care about trees and sidewalks while supporting the eminent domain taking of a Haitian family’s home after forty years of paying taxes.

Now, the state has handed these same interests a stronger legal framework and stripped residents of procedural tools that were essential in protecting neighborhoods for decades.

The Housing Crisis is not a zoning issue it’s a housing issue

If the Governor and leadership were serious about addressing homelessness, this bill would have included policies that actually prevent homelessness.

Where is the cap on rent increases, the single most effective way to prevent displacement?

Where is Just Cause eviction, which stops landlords from evicting tenants for profit.

Advertisement

Where is the mandate that all new construction include deeply affordable units at meaningful percentages?

Where is state-funded support for seniors and retirees on fixed incomes?

Where are anti-displacement protections for long time residents in gentrifying neighborhoods?

Where is the requirement to use vacant state-owned or city-owned buildings for housing?

Where is a statewide homelessness prevention fund?

Advertisement

Where is the restructuring of affordability requirements to begin with the lowest income tiers?

Where is the real commitment to ending family homelessness?

And perhaps most importantly, where is statewide funding for the Homeless to Housing (H2H) model, a pilot program under DMHAS that has shown remarkable success. H2H recognizes that anyone who has been homeless for six months has endured trauma that traditional shelter based pathways only worsen. Instead of forcing people through the shelter pipeline and then into a multi year-wait for Section 8, followed by an additional wait to find vacancy to use it, H2H places people directly into housing with supportive services. This approach bypasses bureaucratic delays, stabilizes individuals more quickly, and treats homelessness as the trauma crisis it is. HB 8002 should have funded H2H statewide. It did not.

Development over people, again

The bill creates grants, loans, and financial incentives for municipalities, but only if they play by the state’s zoning and planning rules. This is not collaboration. This is coercion. And it is not designed to help cities like Stamford that have already built more than our share. It is aimed at the suburbs, but in doing so, it strips urban residents of public process and hands developers a smoother, faster path to approval.

It is no wonder that lobbyists showed up this session with renewed energy. It is no wonder that what failed repeatedly in full sessions suddenly sailed through in a special session when legislators received the bill the day before voting. There was no deep caucus discussion, no chance to bring concerns forward, no opportunity for public testimony to shape the outcome.

Advertisement

This should concern every resident of Connecticut. The process was rushed, opaque, and tilted toward special interests, not toward public good.

Where do we go from here

We can no longer pretend that this pattern is accidental. Connecticut has allowed development interests to shape policy for nearly four decades, and the cost has been the slow erasure of working class communities, Black and Brown neighborhoods, and the elderly who built our cities long before developers discovered them. HB 8002 continues this trend. It gives more leverage to those who already dominate planning decisions and further marginalizes the residents who live with the consequences.

Housing justice is not achieved by fast tracking luxury apartments near train stations and calling them progress. It is not achieved by weakening public process. It is not achieved by handing out grants to municipalities only if they deregulate their zoning codes. And it is certainly not achieved by passing a one hundred page bill in a special session with less than twenty four hours for legislators to review it.

Connecticut’s housing crisis is not a crisis of zoning. It is a crisis born of political decisions that prioritize developers over people, revenue over human dignity, and “units produced” over stability and belonging. We can build all the transit adjacent towers we want, but if our seniors are still getting evicted, if our families are still being priced out, if our retirees are still sleeping in cars, then we have failed. Period.

Real leadership means confronting the interests that have captured our housing policy. It means capping rents, protecting tenants, funding H2H statewide, and mandating deeply affordable units in every major development. It means putting the lives of our most vulnerable residents ahead of the profit margins of the most powerful players in the room.

Advertisement

Connecticut stands at a crossroads. We can continue down the path of developer driven policy dressed up as equity, or we can finally choose the harder, more honest path, the one that puts people before profit and communities before speculation. HB 8002 chose the wrong path. It is now up to the rest of us to demand better.

Because if we do not fight for real housing justice, no one else will.


David Michel was a state representative for the 146th district from 2019 to 2025, a part of Stamford that includes the South End, Downtown, and Shippan.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Connecticut

Five Guys shutters Orange location

Published

on

Five Guys shutters Orange location


A popular fast food restaurant has closed the doors of one of its Connecticut locations.

The Five Guys location on Boston Post Road in Orange posted an announcement of the closure on its front door.

While there aren’t any other Five Guys locations in the town of Orange, other nearby Five Guys restaurants include the locations on Amity Road in New Haven and Bridgeport Avenue in Shelton.

NBC Connecticut has reached out to Five Guys and the town of Orange, but they have not responded to our request for comment.

Advertisement

It is unclear how many employees were impacted by the closure and if they were offered any opportunities to work at nearby locations.



Source link

Continue Reading

Connecticut

Crews battle barn fire in East Windsor

Published

on

Crews battle barn fire in East Windsor


Multiple roads in East Windsor were closed for several hours as crews fought an early morning barn fire.

According to the Broad Brook Fire Department, a large barn fire broke out a 365 North Road around 1:30 Friday morning.

Mutual aid from multiple towns are assisting at the scene.

The fire department had route 140 shut down between Harrington Rd and the old Herb Holden Trucking on Broad Brook Rd. closed due to hydrant lines across the street. Main St at Wesley Rd was also blocked.

Advertisement

The fire was knocked down and roads reopened around 5 a.m.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending