<p>It doesn’t cost money to place kids by achievement. They are testing and evaluating the kids anyhow. It’s a political problem, not an economic one. In fact, there is a huge fuss made over “identifying” gifted kids, with lots of additional testing which I’m sure the school has to pay for and is not part of the usual testing, recommendations, evaluations, portfolios, parent questionnaires–tons of paperwork. Yet when it’s all done, they haven’t learned anything the teachers don’t already know and then they do very little for the kids. They could actually save money and serve the kids much better by doing away with all this. Simply place kids according to test results and teacher recommendations. Exactly like they are already doing at the high school level, where there are no special gifted activities, just things like honors and AP classes. </p>
<p>Well, “yes” and “no.” I’m bothered by the focus on letters and numbers but also frustrated by the low level of wordly information. They’ll spend countless hours preparing to read “BEE” but then learn little more than the creature’s colors and that they make honey. Additional information is often seen as “over their head” and yet I’ve seen average 5-year-olds bubble over for 20 minutes with impressive detail on some animal they visited at the zoo that day. Instead of growing vocabulary and comprehension from rich material being read to them, they are limited to the most basic of language because that is what they can read to themselves. The focus is on printing letters instead of expressing oneself with language. The sentence a 5-year-old can construct verbally is so much more complex than the sentence they can write. </p>
<p>Developmentally ready kids master letters and numbers pretty quickly. I wish I could find the article again but basically, it showed that a developmentally ready child learns to read in about 6 weeks. Start a year early and it takes a year and 6 weeks. Start 2 years prior and yes, 2 years and 6 weeks to get to about the same level. The countries with the highest literacy rates start instruction later. That can’t be a coincidence. Think about it… we are starting reading and math instruction earlier but come middle school/junior high, curriculum hasn’t really changed from what it was 20 years ago. </p>
<p>Now, that’s not to say I don’t recognize that there are kids who are developmentally ready much earlier and should absolutely be accommodated. My own were well ahead (eldest 2-5 grade levels advanced all around, youngest 1 to 3 years advanced.) My eldest went to a very academic, INFLEXIBLE kindergarten and was miserable with the focus on skills she’d already mastered. My youngest went to a more play-based FLEXIBLE kindergarten that taught academics but it wasn’t the FOCUS. He loved it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When my son was in first grade, the enormous underground oil tank that had been used before the school switched to gas heat was dug up and removed right outside the first grade windows. Removal was necessary to avoid pollution of the soil from residual oil in the old, decaying tank.</p>
<p>The kids were fascinated. The teacher was appalled. She ended up getting opaque shades put over the windows so that the kids could focus on their worksheets instead of watching the construction workers and speculating about what was going on. </p>
<p>But think of all the teachable moments that were missed! </p>
<p>Same school, same year. A girl in the first grade had a developmentally delayed younger sister, who was always along for the ride when her mom picked up a carpool full of kids at school. Many of the first graders were puzzled by the special needs child’s obvious differences, and a few were frightened of her. The mother talked to the principal and school nurse and asked whether it would be possible to schedule a lesson about disabilities and differences for the first graders to help them become more comfortable with her younger child. The response, “Oh, no. We couldn’t possibly do that. Disabilities awareness isn’t taught until the third grade.”</p>
<p><em>Sigh</em></p>
<p>"Developmentally ready kids master letters and numbers pretty quickly. I wish I could find the article again but basically, it showed that a developmentally ready child learns to read in about 6 weeks. Start a year early and it takes a year and 6 weeks. Start 2 years prior and yes, 2 years and 6 weeks to get to about the same level. "</p>
<p>My mother was a reading specialist and was always talking about this and telling people not to fret if their kids were “late” readers. Most catch up to the early reader cohort by age 7. However, if they weren’t reading well by 3rd grade - then it was a problem (usually a learning disability) that needed to be addressed. </p>
<p>Fourth grade was the year the entire school curriculum seemed to be about death - The Cay, The Bridge to Teribithia. But there are lots of older books with strong girls - The Secret Garden, The Girl of the Limberlost, all the E Nesbit books, Edward Eager, Louisa May Alcott … My kids read a lot of contemporary fiction too. Harry Potter was appearing, they liked the Animorph books, they read Garth Nix, the Lord of the Rings (younger son’s favorite in 3rd grade), all those darn Redwall books. I don’t think there were as many dystopian books in the news at the time, but they found lots to read.</p>
<p>@turtletime, I don’t think they are testing the kindergarteners in a format where they have to read and bubble. But I’m sure they get evaluated by the teacher on whether they know letter sounds, can read simple words, know how to count, etc. I agree that early reading is very limiting in vocabulary and sophistication of ideas that can be expressed. My kids weren’t exceptionally early readers. And they didn’t particularly like it until their skills got strong enough to read material that really interested them. Then they progressed very rapidly. I think this isn’t that uncommon and is why some of the later bloomers may catch up to the early readers.</p>
<p>There are going to be such wide differences at kindergarten (and most schools are only going to have a few kindergarten teachers for different groups) so you don’t need extensive testing to figure out groupings. A few minutes sitting with each kid should reveal if they know the alphabet, letter sounds, simple words, or are already reading books. Similarly for numbers, can they count, can they do simple additions and subtractions, do they have a concept of place value? And none of this means they have to focus on academics to the exclusion of other things. Just because the academics is more advanced doesn’t mean it has to consume more time. If you want to maintain mixed-level classes, you could have the kids rotate out for math and for reading and keep them with a home teacher for everything else.</p>
<p>There’s been a lot of talk on this thread about needing to learn social skills in kindergarten, with no mention of the fact that the majority (50% of 4 year olds and 70% of 5 year olds) of entering kindergarteners have already beein in preschool. This isn’t a group of kids who are entirely new to a group setting. And in our middle class community, the kids who aren’t in preschool are attending an endless string of play groups, library reading groups, art classes, group swim lessons, playground groups, church groups, etc. </p>
<p>@mathyone, I’m confused. Are you sure this is directed at me? I wasn’t talking about testing in kindergarten at all. </p>
<p>@shellz You are correct, math acceleration can be tricky. It’s very normal for even gifted children to accelerate easily through 6th grade math in the early years but then stumble in algebra simply because they aren’t developmentally ready for it. I had a friend who taught math at a highly gifted school and she came across this all the time. Both my kids hit algebra at age 11 (7th grade) and while aced earlier maths in record time, just weren’t developmentally ready for algebra. It was more of a struggle than they were ever used to. Thankfully, our middle school, while offering algebra to earlier grades, also requires a second year of what they call “advanced algebra” before moving on. Basically, they spend an extra year “playing” with algebra and problem solving as well as exposure to Algebra II. Another year of maturity and it all made perfect sense and they were back on their accelerated math path never to have another problem. </p>
<p>Of course, there will always be a few for which “it was just fine” but that doesn’t make it “just fine” for the masses. It doesn’t even mean those kids are destined for higher math acquisition. </p>
<p>We forget that our brain is an organ that has to physically grow and change just like any other body part. A kid can be a genius but their eyes might not be fully developed until 7 (which is normal) making small print in novels too difficult to read despite having the intellectual ability to read anything. A child might be astounding in math and yet, hit a wall where nothing but a little more growth is going to help. This is the issue with kindergarten. So many kids at such diverse levels of development. It’s why I’d love to see rich knowledge exposure which kids of all ability ranges can thrive as opposed to letters and numbers which will be too easy for some and impossibly hard for others who have to grow up and function as equals in the world.</p>
<p>@mathyone said, “50% of four year olds, and 70% of five year olds … have already been in preschool.” Could provide a link for that statistic? That is not what I have read: </p>
<p><a href=“Report: Fewer Than Half of U.S. Children Attend Preschool”>http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/early_years/2012/07/report_fewer_than_half_of_us_children_attend_preschool.html</a></p>
<p>And <a href=“http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc3.asp”>http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc3.asp</a></p>
<p>The percentage of children who have attended preschool prior to kindergarten is quite a bit less than 50-70%.</p>
<p>When I compare what the kids were leaning in the european school my children attended vs the american one here in the states…I would say that we “generally” miss the mark on the early curriculum.</p>
<p>When my student was a 1st grader in Europe, these children were learning to read, write in cursive, handle base ten/decimals, then had English class regularly, as well as art, music and PE.</p>
<p>My 4th graders class was rigorous and the kids were expected to handle their exams in both written and oral forms…</p>
<p>Both of my children had attended a public K and had one of the best teacher’s ever…AND the parent involvement for supporting the small groups, reading, and centers etc was strong.
I think the success of the early years is largely dependent on the support of parents. Do the kids have their daily planner checked? Do the kids have their book in a bag…and have they read it regularly all week? Is a parent working with them in learning moments, helping in the kitchen, counting etc?</p>
<p>Just changing the curriculum without support of parents will not solve the problem.</p>
<p>@eastcoascrazy, I don’t claim any expertise, I took the numbers from the graph provided here
<a href=“Fast Facts: Preprimary education enrollment (516)”>Fast Facts: Preprimary education enrollment (516); by the “National center for education statistics” whatever that is. Actually, I see now that graph is for full day programs. They cite in the text 65% of 4 year olds and 88% of 5 year olds being enrolled at least part-time in preschool. </p>
<p>One of the reasons for the success of the Montessori mixed-age classroom is that only 1/3-1/2 of the entering kids are new. The older returning kids have been trained in social and classroom expectations and they do a very good job of transmitting those expectations to the new kids. </p>
<p>Your first source says that 47% of three and four year olds attend preschool. I was looking at 4 and 5 year olds, since the question is not whether they attended at age 3, but whether kindergarten is their first real exposure to a group setting. Plenty of kids will still be home at age 3 but then have a year or two of pre-school before starting K. Not starting until age 4 can be due to a variety of reasons such as cost, presence of other young siblings so parent is home anyhow, not having completed potty training (generally required for programs serving ages 3+), or parents who simply want to parent as long as possible, while still recognizing that some preschool before kindergarten may be beneficial. The second source is mostly about ages 0-4 which is even less relevant.</p>
<p>@turtletime, I think I misunderstood your post, sorry.</p>
<p>I think we need to track the early grades, but in a far different way than we do now. Now, most gifted & talented programs are based on IQ–even though everyone knows IQ testing with little kids is “iffy.” I think instead, we should track by achievement. I didn’t learn to read until first grade–and it didn’t hurt me at all. However, my kid was reading chapter books by 4th birthday. Nobody pushed my kid to read. Indeed, the nursery school director told me she thought that was the case–until she observed my kid in a nursery school classroom. She said she’d never seen a kid who was so compelled to learn to read. </p>
<p>I think we should also track math. Piaget has a concept called the “conservation of matter.” Until you understand it, math is pretty meaningless. Some kids grasp it as early as 4; many others don’t until they are 7. You CAN have a kid do things to encourage to develop an understanding of this concept. (Simplifying greatly, it’s illustrated by understanding that the same volume of material in a different form is still the same volume. If you pour a pitcher of water into glasses in front of a 3 year old, (s)he doesn’t understand that the amount of water in the pitcher and the glasses is the same. Until you understand that, learning 2+2=4 or that 3 teaspoons is the same as a tablespoon is just rote learning–you don’t “get” the underlying concept.) </p>
<p>Then we should retrack every year–if a kid catches up, he should get moved up. If a kid who started at a higher level doesn’t progress as much, (s)he should move down. And nobody should view this as horrible. Now, we tend to track kids when they are young and they stay in the same track. We also tend to put kids into one overall track–not recognizing that a kid who is reading at 4th grade level in first grade may not be ready for equivalent math and vice versa. </p>
<p>I think kids should be tracked also, but there should be frequent re-evaluations and ability to move between groups. Kids can jump several years reading levels in a few months once they get started. Another way to handle this would be to teach reading and math in a more flexible montessori-like self-paced environment. The math materials are excellent for young kids until they grasp abstractions and don’t need the hands-on materials anymore. </p>
<p>Too much emphasis is being put on academics in kindergarten. I have seen a shift as a parent and I do not see kids being more creative or intellectual thinkers. </p>
<p>IMO, the goal of Kdg should be to develop kids into life long learners, who love to read and are intellectually curious. A tall order, to be sure. If we kill and drill them in Kdg, the odds of achieving the above goal? Slim to none. </p>
<p>@samurailandshark, but then what do you with the kids who <em>want</em> to read or do math in kindergarten? Do you force them to play house? Maybe they’ve been playing house for 2 years already in preschool–half of them have been in preschool since age 3 or earlier–or at home with their siblings, and they are tired of that. Maybe they just learned to read and they’re excited to do that. Ultimately it boils down to are you willing to hold some kids back because not everyone develops at the same rate? I do agree it doesn’t make sense to force-feed academics to kids who obviously aren’t ready for it, but what do you do with the others then? You will have to answer to angry parents if some kids are being instructed and others are deemed not ready.</p>
<p>When I was in K, and pre-school, we had different stations that could accommodate 3-6 kids at a time and every so often we had to switch to the next one, and periodically throughout the day there were free choose periods where you could pick to do whatever you most wanted again. I have no idea anymore how they arranged this in a way we small kids could understand or that they could keep track of, because we had one teacher and 25-30 kids, but it was set up so that you could spend most of the day reading storybooks or doing math puzzles of varying difficulty for your skill level if you wanted to, but other stations included a play kitchen with dress up clothes, a sand table, crafts, coloring, building blocks, marbles, and a jungle gym. At the end of the day you did almost every station and had free choose times to spend extra time with what you liked better. We broke for guided whole-class activities like being read to or doing a particular craft or something. One of the stations was snack time so you could eat when you were hungry. I could be at the math station practicing counting beads while another kid could be sitting next to me doing math problems, they had different things set up for different skill levels.</p>
<p>I guess I have no idea how we all turned out in terms of education but I sure did okay and I remember loving it, and it seemed appropriate for a very wide range of skill sets. The very exceptional kids, on either end of the spectrum, are always going to need to work outside of school to really make the most of their education and I don’t think that is something that can be changed.</p>
<p>One thing that I found odd was that after K, EVERYTHING except reading was mashed into one group and the only split anymore was to remove the special ed kids from class to work with their aides. I wish they had kept math split into groups by skill levels just a little bit longer for those of us that were failing but didnt have 504 plans, or for the more advanced kids. Keeping reading split all the way through elementary school seemed to work just fine, I don’t know why they couldnt have done it with math, too.</p>
<p>I think it’s important for all parents to assume that they will be filling in the gaps or extending lessons for their children. A Kdg teacher typically only has 3.5-4 hrs with a child, and the parent the remainder. We can only do so much with such disparate groups of kids. Even great teachers who differentiate learning/tasks, will not be fully able to meet the needs of every child. I know working parents especially may struggle with this, as they aren’t often there after school, but having kids is a tireless endeavor. I often sent home lesson extensions for the extremely off the charts students I had, for whom going up to 2nd/3rd grade for reading was just not feasible ( ie,
Timing didn’t work out). We do our best to provide for a good learning environment which can be difficult with 30+ kids in a class. Parents must step up and be their child’s most important teacher.</p>
<p>Mathyone, </p>
<p>You are misunderstanding me, which is easy with my short repsonse. I have three kids. The oldest ones had a fairly standard kinder experience. The younger one had a much bigger kinder experience. I have worked in schools for the better part ofna decade and seen some stuff that really annoys me. </p>
<p>I recall vividly when the kinder teacher told me that my child was not on track because she wasn’t reading as well as others in the class. </p>
<p>After I laughed at this, I told her I wasn’t concerned. Kids grow and mature at different rates. By first assessment in first grade, her teacher told me she was at top of reading levels. So she didn’t hit that milestone in May? Oh well. She went past in in Septemeber. </p>
<p>All my kids did well in school. Two of them are out of college. The youngest is doing well at one of top schools in country. </p>
<p>I think that the push for the more academic environment didn’t benefit her or her peers. It wasn’t reading faster in kinder that made her achieve throughout life. </p>
<p>I saw a lot of burnout out kids in that class by the time they graduated. Lots of students who knew how to play the game, but that wasn’t always higher intellectual or more creative thought. Worksheets and group projects and papers…and they all started a lot earlier for child three than for my older kids. </p>
<p>There is a huge difference between naps at kindergarten and what we have now, or what we even had 15 years ago. </p>
<p>Pushing them faster - doesn’t make them smarter. It gets them there faster. That is all. </p>
<p>If a kid wants to learn math or reading or writing, of course by all means. I think standardized testing as a method to assess that is wrong, because there are so many variables. </p>
<p>Experiential kindergarten is learning by doing. I am all for this. </p>
<p>If I had to do it over again, Inwould have skipped kinder and started them all in third grade and spent that time with them learning by doing more things. Once they hit that school treadmill, well, they are stuck on it. </p>
<p>You know how many kids I know at middle school and older who no longer have time to read for pleasure, outside of school work? Appalling. </p>
<p>There is a lot to learn in life. Rushing heavier academics than we currently have at that level is a mistake. Like Everyday Math or Whole Language. It will bite us in a few years. </p>
<p>Ema, that experience you had was more typical for my older kids. It was great! You are about the same age as them. </p>
<p>The way my daughter had kinder was more like all the groups mashed together, with a little bit of wxtra time for reading groups only. </p>