DOES THE COMPULSORY LAST PRESCHOOL YEAR PRESENT A SOLUTION FOR SOCIALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ?

Almost any media presented topic concerning the educational system sparks up a "passionate", though not always completely professional, matter-of-fact discussion – whether it is the state school-leaving exam, unified entrance examination at high schools or tuition fees at universities. In recent weeks and months, the main educational topic is the introduction of compulsory last year in preschools (nursery schools). In this context, it is possible to quote from the work of Otakar Kádner (1925, p. 3): "It cannot be denied that even in the countries most advanced in cultural terms, the public itself does not view education properly, certainly always underestimating and ignoring it in contrast to other spiritual disciplines. While it is true that there is an undoubted interest in practical educational issues abroad and in our country, that the public seeks consistently and adamantly new and often very radical adjustments to all education, that copious quantities of articles, books and essays of this kind swarm, and that the idea rules that one can change in a whiplash centuries-old tradition [. . . ] which itself is difficult to navigate, for there are in all of it no unifying ideas or single world-view, but to the contrary, everything seems to be in the ferment of transformation, for education has the same fate in this regard as medicine does: everyone thinks he understands these disciplines without any preparation, and so everyone dares to write and talk about these issues without professional studies and only in his fragmentary experience, which is often adopted second-handedly from a descend of God-knows-how-remote origin." Kádner confirms the fact that dealing with the topics related to education, we will always be walking on the thin ice of laity. The central idea for the introduction of systemic changes, which is what the extension of compulsory schooling represents, is to provide socially disadvantaged children (children from socially unstimulating environment) a chance to increase their school success. It is not possible to disagree with the fact that systematic preschool education is very important for children from unstimulating environments, however, it is not possible to agree with the proposed manner and procedure. The main arguments are primarily listed at the end of this contribution.


Introduction
Almost any media presented topic concerning the educational system sparks up a "passionate", though not always completely professional, matter-of-fact discussion -whether it is the state school-leaving exam, unified entrance examination at high schools or tuition fees at universities.In recent weeks and months, the main educational topic is the introduction of compulsory last year in preschools (nursery schools).In this context, it is possible to quote from the work of Otakar Kádner (1925, p. 3): "It cannot be denied that even in the countries most advanced in cultural terms, the public itself does not view education properly, certainly always underestimating and ignoring it in contrast to other spiritual disciplines.While it is true that there is an undoubted interest in practical educational issues abroad and in our country, that the public seeks consistently and adamantly new and often very radical adjustments to all education, that copious quantities of articles, books and essays of this kind swarm, and that the idea rules that one can change in a whiplash centuries-old tradition [. . .] which itself is difficult to navigate, for there are in all of it no unifying ideas or single world-view, but to the contrary, everything seems to be in the ferment of transformation, for education has the same fate in this regard as medicine does: everyone thinks he understands these disciplines without any preparation, and so everyone dares to write and talk about these issues without professional studies and only in his fragmentary experience, which is often adopted second-handedly from a descend of God-knows-how-remote origin."Kádner confirms the fact that dealing with the topics related to education, we will always be walking on the thin ice of laity.The central idea for the introduction of systemic changes, which is what the extension of compulsory schooling represents, is to provide socially disadvantaged children (children from socially unstimulating environment) a chance to increase their school success.It is not possible to disagree with the fact that systematic preschool education is very important for children from unstimulating environments, however, it is not possible to agree with the proposed manner and procedure.The main arguments are primarily listed at the end of this contribution.
For an introduction to the issues dealt with here, it is appropriate to indicate some basic data.Children at the age of 6 years can be considered from the point of view of participation in pre-primary education as a marginal group that in the school year 2013/2014 only consisted of 5.58 % of all children attending preschool.The group of children aged 5 years, however, is the most numerous and in the same school year, it made up 30.59 %.The ratio of 5-year-olds to 6-year-olds is approximately 5 to 1 in the obvious disadvantage of the 6-year-old group.In total, preschool was attended by 90.50 % of the 5-year-old cohort and 17.10 % of the 6-year-old cohort.In comparison with previous years, this data can be considered as stable, with the exception of the slight regression of the share by 6-year-olds and the mild progression following a phase of some regression in the 5-year-olds in the school year mentioned (PERFORMANCE DATA ON SCHOOLS AND SCHOOLING FACILI-TIES -2003/04-2013/14 [online]).With regard to the fact that the Czech Statistical Office (CSO) provides their demographic data always to January 1 st , July 1 st and December 31 st of a given year, the contribution lists demographic data summary as to December 31 st 2013 and 2014 and the recalculated data of the Ministry of Education Youth and Sports (henceforth as "MEYS"), which are based on the assumption of uniform age distribution of children of a school grade and of the proportion of children participating in preschool education.In terms of statistical representation, therefore, there is a certain limit due to the different cut-off dates of data collection between the aforementioned dates of the CSO and the MEYS for who the applicable date is September 1 st of the given year.Thus, certain differences in calculations and estimates are possible but negligible in view of the whole.The average number of children per preschool was 71.5 children in the school year 2013/2014.In the 5-year-old group, a total of 11,767 children did not partake in preschool education in 2013.In comparison to the intention to introduce the compulsory last year of preschool before joining primary school (elementary), the figures stated mean that the Czech Republic lacks 164.57preschools, calculated for the case if they accepted children at the age of 5 years only.Therefore, in reality, many more preschools are lacked.Similar figures are available for 2014: if we consider the same average number of children per nursery school, and the number of 10,790 members of the target group that did not attend preschool education, "only" 150.91 nursery schools would be lacked.Once again, however, these missing nursery schools would have to only accept children aged 5 years.In the school year 2013/2014, a total of 60,281 placement requests for children in nursery schools (all age groups) were rejected.The children for whose sake the proposed change is being undertaken, make up an estimated 10 % of their age cohort.The aim of this paper is to present through discussion the title aspects of these changes as a way of viewing them.

Economic Aspect
The economic aspect is the first point of view one can look into the issue from.It is probably the viewpoint most explicitly expressive of the demanding nature of the planned changes which would at the same time be comprehensible to the general public.Unfortunately, however, it is also a factor which is dominant and often "trumping" the essence of the changes, their rationale, purpose, etc., and it is also divided into direct and indirect costs, whether for the state or for the municipalities.Direct economic costs may be based on the data presented in the introduction.The most economically demanding option is the saturation of compulsory education of children in nursery schools in accordance with the current occupancy of nursery schools.Their capacity would have to rise to provide places for children not participating in preschool education.Certainly, new nursery schools would not have to be built always and everywhere, also because, as mentioned in the introduction, the figures only present very simplified mathematical variations.Increasing the capacity would most likely be conducted by increasing the number of places in nursery schools, introducing organizational changes in the form of the creation of new departments, etc.The costs of this option would be divided between municipalities and the state, counted in tens of millions of Czech crowns.To illustrate the current status, tables 1-9 below list annual increase (or decrease) in the number of preschool education places in different districts of the Czech Republic.An education place generally does not indicate the emergence of a new nursery school but mostly the emergence of a new class, department, etc.Data provided by the MEYS show that even though slight increase can be traced in most cases, the overall condition can rather be described as stagnation.In the case of the introduction of compulsory final year of preschool, much more progressive increase would have to occur.From a polemic viewpoint, the specific target amount of finances is negligible in regard to the Czech state budget, however these funds would have to be "found somewhere", namely in parts in the MEYS budget and in the municipal budgets.It may seem that the financial expenses (calculated only in orders of magnitude here) should not be a determining factor.However, it is necessary to add another significant figure here.
Capacity reasons are only one point of view, it may be considered as a more fundamental point of view if we ask why and for whom we implement this change.localities.Assuming an even age distribution, we are qualified to say that the number of underprivileged children aged 5 and 6 years is between 5,120-6,149.A qualified estimate of the number of underprivileged children makes up 2.37 % to 2.85 % in the age cohorts of 5 and 6 years (Čada et al. [online]; The age composition of the population -2014 [online]).Given the fact that it was based on competently identified estimates involving socially excluded localities, the total actual number of children in the target age and social group can realistically be higher.However, for the purposes of drawing up national and regional strategies, this difference is not relevant.The proportion of children from an environment of social exclusion who do not participate in preschool education in the year before starting school is highly dependent on many factors.These are the factors of the situation of the excluded locality (city vs. rural), employment vs. unemployment of parents, trafic availability (in time).An important factor is also the preference of cheaper forms of preschool education by parents (preparatory classes).Čada et al. [online] indicate that the proportion of children from socially excluded localities in nursery schools oscillates between 10 and 90 % depending on the factors mentioned above.It can therefore be deduced that the number of children aged 5 and 6 years who are socially disadvantaged and are not participating in preschool education lies in the respective ranges 4,608-5,534 and 512-615 children of the target groups.These somewhat ranging numbers of socially disadvantaged children are targeted by the change planned in the education system which will have an impact on all children of the age cohorts.Tables no.10-18 show year over year comparison of the share of children aged 5 years participating in preschool education.It is important to point out that the actual number of children participating in preschool education may be slightly higher (by units of percentage).The data comes from the MEYS and monitor only nursery schools.Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that some children of this age group may by their parents' own initiative use other institutions who in a time-limited and reduced scope of services provide what we might describe as preschool education, but they do not have the statute of preschool despite carrying out their work legally.Also children who cannot attend preschool for some reason (primarily health) have influence on the percentage share.
The identified statistical data also bring a variety of interesting information.An example is the preschool education in Pelhřimov district.Here, more children attended preschool than actually live in the district in 2014.This fact is to be commented on in relation to the total numbers.There was a year on year decline of 68 children aged 5 years, but the number of children of the same age in nursery schools only decreased by 16.It can therefore be assumed that the nursery schools in Pelhřimov district educate children from other districts as well.This probably is not an isolated phenomenon but it is not so directly detectable in other districts without further detailed investigation.The share of children aged 5 years participating in preschool education expressed in percentage must be read with regard to the numbers of excluded localities in the district (e.g. the districts of the Ústí nad Labem Region).Overall, 89.92 % of children aged 5 years participated in preschool education in 2014, which compared to the year 2013 is an increase of 0.74 %.The annual percentage increase or decrease in individual districts cannot be attributed only and always to the active intervention or passive "waiting" of the individual nursery school founders.The data show that there is considerable disparity among the individual districts, which has already been partly discussed above.Therefore, some districts will not practically sense the change in the form of compulsory last year spent in nursery school.
Objectively, it must be admitted that these financial expenses provide an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of their spending in relation to the school performance of children, even though it will be a simplified evaluation, or such that will lead to further discussion of whether they were too little or too much.However, there is also an option that seems "cost-free": retaining the current preschool network with the number of places of education and giving priority to children who should by law be entitled to a place in preschool.Thus, there would be discontent of the parents of those children who attended preschool but are younger than 5 years (in most cases) and who would now lose their place in preschool, or discontent of those parents whose children have reached the age when they can start preschool.As mentioned, it is an option which is "seemingly cost-free".If the approach with zero or slightly progressive increase in the number of places in nursery schools were chosen, a part of the parents of children who are legally obligated to attend preschool could have problems with their own return to work after parental leave.This represents the indirect costs which in this case would accrue to the State.
In the economic aspect, it would be necessary to also take into account the financial resources spent on teacher assistants, further education for pedagogical employees in preschool, etc.The economic demands need to always be assessed on the background of qualified estimates of the numbers of children for who the system change is designed.

School Success
School success and its increase with children with social disadvantage is the fundamental cited point of departure for the whole system change.All the arguments against the change could be emphatically rejected by a demonstrable increase in school success in the target group.
If we build on the 2009 research entitled "Educational Paths and Educational Chances of Roma Pupils of Primary Schools in the Vicinity of Excluded Localities", we find that the influence of attending preschool is at least debatable.The authors of said research focused in one of its parts on the likelihood of children keeping up with their original class at a mainstream school in relation to preschool attendance.Four main lines of research or four groups of pupils (those who attended preschool, those who did not attend preschool, Roma pupils who attended preschool and Roma students who did not attend preschool) were observed.The results showed that there was a difference2 between pupils (Roma and others) who attended or did not attend nursery school (see Diagram no. 1).Overall, it can be derived from the diagram whether preschool does or does not have an effect.Interestingly, the authors of the study assigned a significantly greater impact to the family with the groups of Roma pupils.
determined by capacity or other reasons.However, there is a difference between "having the right" and "having the duty".The state cannot take over this part of the task of raising children and of families in general, and it cannot assume parental responsibility3 .The state should let parents retain the right to their own decisions in the field of preschool education of their children.In a broader context, on the contrary, it should expand the possibilities of institutional provisions for preschool education.
The authors are not the first ones to present the above thoughts as they may partially be traced in texts by Těthalová (2015), Lánská [online] and in a number of personal blogs of both professionals and lay public.

Conclusion
The above-mentioned facts suggest that the proposed systemic change is not to be agreed with.The list of its aspects cited here is deliberately not exhaustive.For example, the readiness of preschool teachers for the change, the readiness of changes in curricular documents, the issue of preparatory classes, and the attitude of parents of children from socially excluded environments remain open problems (in accordance with publication ethics the results of a qualitative study conducted by Kolaříková and Janiš, 2015, are not stated here).This discussion paper only chose three areas that can be considered as umbrella fields as other contextual areas would overcharge the scope of this paper.
The greatest failure and the main reason why this contribution expresses disagreement with the systemic changes in question is their superficiality.Children from unstimulating environments at risk of social exclusion need long-term systematic preschool education and training.To change the attitudes of families, support of work with these families in their environment is needed in order to promote their active participation in the process.
In the context of the proposed systemic legislative changes, the funds will be released in favour of a negligible percentage of children in the age cohort.It would be much more efficient to spend these funds on more preschool clubs, outreach programs to areas where social work would team up with preschool pedagogy, since without systematic professional work with the families, the proposed change will have almost no positive effect.

Year over year comparison of the number of places of preschool education (districts)
The total population in socially excluded localities was estimated in 2014 at 89,600 to 107,600 (excluding the Capital city of Prague).According to the estimated structure, the individuals 15 years of age and below make up 40%, i.e. 35,840 to 43,040 inhabitants of socially excluded