<p>
</p>
<p>So true. As part of a college course I am teaching, I offered the students a choice of projects, including writing a paper or doing a review of a fiction book related to the course topic. I had at least three students approach me to thank me for giving them the opportunity to read something “fun” because otherwise they can’t find time in their schedule to fit it in (which is a whole other topic, but never mind…).</p>
<p>I don’t actually disagree with mathyone as much as my comments might indicate, but I do think there are some inaccurate statistics that are are being thrown on the table, mostly in support of your statement that up to 70% of kindergarteners have attended preschool, and that therefore, kindergarteners do not need to spend much time on socialization skills, or on learning cooperation and other soft, nonacademic "skills.</p>
<p>The vast majority of kindergarteners are five years old. The age at which a child may register for kindergarten varies from state to state. </p>
<p><a href=“Standarized Testing - Education - Schools - Test Scores - The New York Times”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/magazine/03kindergarten-t.html</a> states that “The birthday cutoffs span six months, from Indiana, where a child must turn 5 by July 1 of the year he enters kindergarten, to Connecticut, where he must turn 5 by Jan. 1 of his kindergarten year.”</p>
<p>So it is appropriate to look at preschool statistics through age four, since most children start kindergarten when they are five. (Some may start at age six, and I did not look that percentage up.</p>
<p>I am using statistics from Child Trends, which is a nonprofit research group. According to Child Trends</p>
<p><a href=“Home - Child Trends – ChildTrends”>Home - Child Trends – ChildTrends;
<p>Among those children not yet enrolled in kindergarten, the percentage of three- to five-year olds enrolled in full-day prekindergarten and preschool programs increased from 21 percent in 1994 to 26 percent in 2012. The percentage of young children enrolled in part-day prekindergarten and preschool programs did not change significantly between 1994 and 2012, and was at 27 percent in 2012 - See more at: <a href=“Home - Child Trends – ChildTrends”>Home - Child Trends – ChildTrends;
<p>Preschool participation is roughly 53% of three to five year olds. (26 plus 27 percent).</p>
<p>That leaves a large number of children who have not attended preschool prior to kindergarten. And while many children attend some type of daycare prior to kindergarten, daycare includes being cared for by family members, sitters, small home based daycares, etc. Not every child has experience in daycare centers.</p>
<p>In 2011, 49 percent of children ages 0–4 with employed mothers were primarily cared for by a relative—their father, grandparent, sibling, other relative, or mother— while she worked. This is not statistically different from the percentages in 2010 and 2005. Twenty-four percent spent the most amount of time in a center-based arrangement (day care, nursery school, preschool, or Head Start). Thirteen percent were primarily cared for by a nonrelative in a home-based environment, such as care from a family day care provider, nanny, babysitter, or au pair.
The rate of care by fathers was between 15 and 16 percent in 1985 and 1988, increased to 20 percent in 1991, and settled between 16 and 18 percent from 1993 to 2005. By 2011, the father-care rate was 19 percent.
Among children in families in poverty in 2011, 18 percent were in center-based care as their primary arrangement, while 11 percent were with other relatives (relatives other than the mother, father, or grandparent). By comparison, more children in families at or above the poverty line were in center-based care (26 percent) than were cared for by other relatives (4 percent).
<a href=“http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc3.asp”>http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc3.asp</a></p>
<p>Well, it’s been a long time since I was in elementary school but “back in my day” (but yeah, it was space program community–a different mindset probably) the class lines were very fluid between teachers. Kids were being tracked but that meant that if you were better in math you went next door to join a higher math class, same for reading or any subject. Not so much was written in stone.
We had kids in middle school who walked over to the high school (next door) for math and science classes (and band) if that’s what they needed. Nobody thought much of it. Kids were routinely in higher or lower level classes depending on what they needed.
The closest we’ve found to that environment now was in a smaller private school.</p>
<p>How many babies are in preschool IS irrelevant–and it call that data you cited. The data I cited came from a government agency, and I provided the link earlier. “From 1980 to 2000, the percentage of children enrolled in preprimary programs increased from 27 to 39 percent for 3-year-olds and from 46 to 65 percent for 4-year-olds.” You can choose not to believe it. I see now that they are including kindergarten, so I will discount the numbers for 5 year olds. I think there aren’t many states left that allow 4 year olds to enroll in kindergarten? </p>
<p>Everyone here keeps putting words in my mouth. I never said that kindergarteners don’t need to work on social skills. What I said is that when you have a situation where many kids already have experience with group activities, there is some transmission to the other kids of group expectations. This was very evident in the two Montessori schools my kids attended; it was remarkable how fast the new kids were adjusting to the routines and expectations, which are considerable in Montessori, sometimes exceeding for 3 year olds what a typical kindergartner is expected to do.</p>
<p>I also said that working on academics at a level appropriate for kids does not mean they have to spend more time on them, if you cut out all the junk they don’t need to do and use that time productively. My kids went to a very academic kindergarten. They had regular music class where they sang songs and participated in the school choral concert. They had art. They had drama, and they put on a little play for the parents. I think those were all twice a week for 30-40 minutes. PE I think three times a week. They also had computer class once a week where they pretty much played computer games. They had regular show and tell. They went on lots of field trips to parks, museums, farms, and a few ethnic restaurants. They had a large selection of games and toys in the classroom, but those were for scheduled free time, not just any time they felt like it. On average, they had about 30 minutes a day to play with those toys, an hour if recess was indoors. They had recess every day, 30 minutes. They also learned to raise hands, line up, etc. When it became necessary, they had class discussions about what words are not appropriate to call people or say. The time was structured, not like in Montessori, so it might not have worked for every kid but it was a good experience for mine. I didn’t feel they needed to spend their whole day finger-painting. That, they could do at home.</p>
<p>I think it can sometimes be hard to tell what is an appropriate amount of pushing and what is too much. Most things worth learning cannot be learned without some sustained effort. My younger daughter decided after one or two tries that she hated ice skating, and so my family grew up without it, because I wasn’t generally able to take the older one if the younger one wouldn’t do it, and though I enjoyed it, it didn’t seem worth dragging her through the learning curve. But recently, some of her friends coaxed her to go, and she loved it. I think she would have loved it for years, but she just needed to get over that beginner’s hump, which of course was a little harder at age 4 than in middle school. Same thing for reading, neither kid was a fan at first, but once they reached a certain level of fluency, I found myself having to pull books out of their hands. I promised my kids that it would be worth the work and it was. I could have left either of my kids entirely to her own devices and they might not have gotten around to reading for another 2 years. But then they would have missed out on 2 years of reading, which is pretty much their favorite thing.</p>
<p>Op, I have not read the article or the responses. However, in the book ‘Boys Adrift’ the author, a MD PhD, claims that part of the reason for the decrease in motivation for many boys is the fact that K is basically expecting the work product that previously was expected in 1st grade. Often the girls are developmentally ready for the work and some of the kids who are not Dev ready for the work get separated and cont to stay behind year after year and eventually dislike school. Additionally, I know Japanese families who are surprised at the advanced level of curriculum demands on young American kids. In Japan, They often start off slower, build a firmer base, and then advance much faster in the HS years.</p>
<p>I also am a fan of Montessori, where kids learn math based on experiential learning rather than with worksheets and memorization. Also like the mixed age classes. In the book “boys adrift” the author also states that decreased motivation for boys is less experiential learning and more worksheet learning in our schools.</p>
<p>@eastcoascrazy "Preschool participation is roughly 53% of three to five year olds. (26 plus 27 percent).</p>
<p>That leaves a large number of children who have not attended preschool prior to kindergarten."</p>
<p>Sorry, but you are looking at an average and drawing an incorrect conclusion. Your numbers aren’t much different than mine, but you are misinterpreting. According to my source <a href=“Fast Facts: Preprimary education enrollment (516)”>Fast Facts: Preprimary education enrollment (516);
“From 1980 to 2000, the percentage of children enrolled in preprimary programs increased from 27 to 39 percent for 3-year-olds and from 46 to 65 percent for 4-year-olds.” (That includes part-day programs, obviously the numbers are lower for full-day programs.) So, average participation for 3-4 year-olds is 52%, about what you say. But 65%, about 2/3 of the kids entering kindergarten have had preschool experience. That is a clear majority. The <em>average</em> over the larger age group is lower than 65% because 26% of kids start preschool at age 4 and weren’t in it at age 3. I’m not going to argue about this any more with you, since you keep dragging in irrelevant data about babies in daycare and I don’t know how to explain this any more clearly.</p>
<p>@Samurailandshark, naps? Kindergarteners don’t nap. My daughter was very unhappy (and so was I) when her preschool forced her to “nap” at age 4. She had stopped napping long ago, and it was so boring for her. With respect to middle schoolers reading, that is a matter of choice. The summer before they started 5th grade, they were required to read 3 books of choice and to keep a list of every book they read over the summer. My daughter had about 20 on her list. One of her friends had about 30. But some of the kids hadn’t managed even to get through 3 books all summer long. And some had just the three and nothing more. My middle schooler told me today that she read 5 books in the past 3 weeks. Some of her friends read that way also. Many kids don’t read, but they manage to find plenty of time to know what’s cool on youtube and what their favorite stars are up to, and to send about 100 texts to their friends. It’s about priorities and interest.</p>
<p>Samurailandshark, thanks for your post.</p>
<p>This issue gets me more upset than any other. I wish our culture would demand developmental kindergarten and other early grades for that matter.</p>
<p>My kids pretty much learned how to put their boots in in their half day kindergarten. They have attended top colleges and done fine. There is no hurry and, in fact, there is harm in hurrying.</p>
<p>Kids don’t get to play freely and learn that way, which is natural and always has been the way children learn, often by role playing, imitating and taking things they learn from adults and making them their own (shapes, for instance) at home. The stress young children are under now is just so horrifying. Add social media, screen time, overscheduling, and harried parents and it is not a good mix.</p>
<p>One other thing: many truly gifted kids experience things deeply and get stressed by small amounts of academic pressure or fast-paced schedules. Also, many really gifted kids read later, not earlier. Finally, I have read that reading too early can result in learning disabilities, because the brain is not yet really ready so they learn in ways that are maladaptive. I cannot cite the source: I read this years ago but have remembered it as I raised my kids and it is, at least, something to think about. I once asked our school committee if early academics might increase the use of special education services and I believe they have. This may also be because not reading until 3rd grade, as is true for some kids who used to be seen as just on an individual timetable, can now cause big problems for a child, and most likely the teacher too.</p>
<p>@compmom, I don’t know what studies have been done on early reading, so this is just speculation–we know that young children have a fantastic ability to learn language, and this window of opportunity begins to close around 2nd grade. It seems to me that having significant experience with written language during the time when language skills are so high would be a good thing. I’m not sure how easy it is to study this, but it seems logical to me. </p>
<p>“many truly gifted kids … get stressed by…fast-paced schedules”. I think that can be an issue in school. I can recall my kids starting some work in Montessori, spending all morning and then continuing to work on it the next day. That focus is also why it can be difficult for them to enjoy playing with kids whose attention spans are much shorter. I always found it disconcerting the way sesame street bounces from one thing to the next at a breakneck pace. Never showed it to my kids.</p>
<p>Our youngest was hyperlexic – “reading” at three, but not actually understanding much spoken language until she was seven or so. In the hypercompetitive suburb where we lived, teachers never seemed to notice that our child understood practically nothing of what went on at circle time, had trouble with simple social interactions – instead they would call me and gush about what a great reader she was. Well yes and no. She was definitely a kid who would have benefitted from a less academic kindergarten where she got to develop her fine and gross motor skills. My point is that when we fixate on one type of learning, we often miss out on so much else. No one ever noticed that she always acted out the exactly same scripts in the dress up corner and that they were borrowed from things she had read or seen on tv. I could see how if she were your first child, you’d be tempted to push her academically based on her skills and ignore her deficits. I saw friends do it – “My son is such a little math genius. He sits in the corner all morning solving equations.” Yes, that’s because he doesn’t know how to talk to other children. You might want to work on that. Just because a child excels at academic work doesn’t mean that they’re not frightened in a classroom where they don’t completely understand the various rules and rituals and roles. It helps to remember that they are children.</p>
<p>I taught in low-income schools for years, and taught kinder for 9 years. Yes, way too much busy-work and teaching math skills and decoding -reading. Kinder should be about exploring and hands-on activities and social and emotional learning and huge, huge amounts of oral language and discussion and being read to and vocabulary development, and music and art. My school was drill,kill, test, test, test, sound out words, work sheets, everyone do the same thing at the same time. Absolutely miserable for all involved, and soul-sucking look at more to come. Kinder should develop excitement and buy-in about the value of education. We try to cram too much into early years, and don’t accelerate in the middle school years when the kids are ready for it. Of course, every kid is different and there should be accounting for that, but in general…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was an early reader, and this is what my parents were told. School officials said that I was doomed to academic problems because I had learned to read too early and not in the proper manner.</p>
<p>By the time my now 27-year-old son, who was also an early reader, entered school, nobody was saying this anymore.</p>
<p>Possibly, some harm could be done by trying to actively teach children to read too soon. But if a child picks up reading on his/her own, as my son and I did, there is no harm in it. This is good because it would be a very hard thing to prevent. Some kids, given a normal amount of exposure to print, simply pick up reading as naturally as they would pick up the names of colors or animals. It’s not abnormal. It’s just a variant of normal. And my parents shouldn’t have had to worry about it. </p>
<p>Lets just color!</p>
<p>Definitely a fan of letting little kids take their time. Mine were lucky enough to have developmentally appropriate half day kinder. Older son began to spontaneously read (in two languages with two different alphabets----let me brag) before the end of the year, but kids were not expected to learn to read until first grade. Younger son felt more pressure two years later as state testing became more widespread, and he was expected to read a little before first grade. Ironically, he was a kid who would have done better under a Waldorf model, and not read until late first grade or even early second grade. He was just a much more social and motor driven kid. Older son was calmer and quieter and lived more in his head; younger son was more outgoing and busy exploring the world. They will end up in the same place as adults, with the differences more due to personality than ability. </p>
<p>@compmom " Also, many really gifted kids read later, not earlier."</p>
<p>The last statistic I read was that only 50 percent of gifted kids read prior to kindergarten. Reading is more than IQ. People forget what an important role vision plays. Babies are almost always born far-sighted and that tends to be the case until about 7-years-old (not a coincidence that 7 is the average age when reading “clicks” for most kids. I’ve read other studies that have noted that early readers often need glasses as they age… that’s not saying that the READING caused the need for glasses… only that they were born unusually near-sighted and thus, could focus on print earlier than most kids but once eyes had developed… overshot “normal.” My eldest didn’t read until age 5 but was downing novels within 4 weeks of pointing out her first word. My youngest started pointing out complex words at 2 but didn’t hit what <em>I</em> consider as fully fluent until after his 7th birthday (which also happens to be when his visual-tracking issue resolved itself.) Neither need glasses but I was an early reader and yep… bad vision lol.</p>
<p>Weirdly, though both parents are near-sighted, neither kid has needed glasses. I read something that said that first person shooters of all things might actually be good for your eyes, though almost every other type of work on the computer is not.</p>
<p>I taught my son to read in self-defense of the schools at age 4.<br>
My D could read but she mixed up words to the point that we thought maybe she was dyslexic (but other symptoms weren’t present). She wasn’t. With research, I found a reading book that described her exactly–her problem was a symptom of having learned phonics incorrectly. Sure enough, I started over with her reading aloud to us each night making her slow down to get the words right. It frustrated her at first to have us stop her so often to repeat and look at words more closely but she improved rapidly. Problem solved.
I decided second time around to teach reading myself (MAX 15 minutes a day for a lesson) before the school could mess it up. Worked great.
But I really think great readers are made by parents who read great stories to their kids. Who wants to wait for someone to read that adventure story if you could do it yourself? </p>
<p>Here’s a long post, got on my soapbox. </p>
<p>Inevitably a discussion of kindergarten leads to gifted/talented issues. I learned that different states and school districts use different criteria for school things and some are much more numbers driven than others. My gifted niece faced rigid K start dates and she finally could accelerate years later- her teachers all thought she was an excellent candidate for K instead continuing in preschool for daycare. The concept of identifying giftedness only after those statewide class tests has meant too many GT kids bored in school at an age they lack as many good coping mechanisms. I learned that Oregon strictly regulated GT resources to students in the top 3% by tests instead of looking at the child individually from a parent who had moved to our neighborhood. We were lucky (would have been luckier if son were younger and everything already in place) his district had an individualized means of identifying and meeting needs. I learned so much in the process of being on the parent committee that helped formulate district policies. I also saw more books written about the gifted child as son grew up- too late for his early years. But- so much depends on the parents and their willingness to get what their child needs to best thrive. I knew too many parents who let the schools do it all- they never went beyond that and were content with whatever was offered the average student.</p>
<p>Despite the variances between areas I do not want a central, federal mandate on educational issues. Trying to fit all schools into a one size fits all model would be disastrous. There are well off communities where a large proportion of kids are brighter than the national norms. I also know their kids perform better not just because of IQ but because of opportunities. These include a lot of CC posters and those who feel the need to prep a lot for the SAT (in lieu of spending years insisting their kids learn as much as they can from doing the work in school).</p>
<p>Another comment. By third grade it can be too late to easily correct learning disabilities. Anecdote- a neighbor boy had to attend the local public school (instead of the parochial one) for second grade because he needed too many special services- the district would send specialists for one or two to the private schools. His mother told me his IQ was 120- he needed to learn how to read differently as, in layman’s terms, his brain wiring was different. I never told this mom that her son likely had the lowest IQ among the four boys in the neighborhood within 12 months of age who spent that year in the same double (2 teachers, around 40-45 kids) grade 1-3 classroom. The Feb birthdate kid was in 1st grade, my fall birthday kid in 3rd and the older March-April boys in 2nd. Our state had better public than private education.</p>
<p>Eons ago my brother repeated first grade and was never a good reader. If only they had learned how to teach differently for that minority (often boys) who are wired differently and don’t handle the typical teaching methods that work for the masses. Learning how to read effectively at a younger age would have meant his full intellectual potential could have been reached as he would have had the needed tools to learn. The neighbor boy was lucky- he went back to his school and did well.</p>
<p>Our state closed the loophole gifted parents wanted to make use of to get funding for their kids by changing wording from “exceptional” kids. Using a euphemism instead of saying what they meant- low end intellectual ability- opened up the door to requesting funds for kids exceptional at the opposite end of the Bell curve. Our district GT coordinator used the low end needs model for individualizing GT programming for kids. Special needs applications to get students who needed to bypass general district policies. I wish all districts would use this approach.</p>
<p>To relate to the thread title. Any time you pose a “too easy” question the parents of gifted kids will emerge to point out how one size never fits all.</p>
<p>@Momzie, “I could see how if she were your first child, you’d be tempted to push her academically based on her skills and ignore her deficits.” Actually, this is part of the reason why we opted to pull our kids out of Montessori and send them to a more traditionally-structured school. First one was absolutely fascinated by the math works, and got a lot out of it. But she stopped doing any of the reading-readiness works. I could imagine that continuing and I wanted her to get a more balanced education. Second one was the social butterfly and eventually figured out which works would allow her to spend her days chatting with her little friends. She spent much of her last year tracing shapes and coloring them. I don’t think there was any intellectual progress being made (or physical either, since her fine motor skills were way over what was needed to do this activity). That was ok for preschool. I didn’t feel it was ok for school. I’m not against allowing kids to pursue their interests, but I think there needs to be some balance and that a certain amount of structure is usually beneficial.</p>
<p>@wis75 “By third grade it can be too late to easily correct learning disabilities”. One of our neighbors had a kid in Montessori and with the very laissez-faire attitude toward gaining skills, the child was not noticed to be dyslexic until 3rd grade. Sometimes there is a good reason why kids may be avoiding activities and “follow the child” is not always in the child’s best interest.</p>
<p>In addition to the challenge of having young kids at extremely different levels, you can never satisfy all the parents, because even in a class of kids with identical abilities, you would have to contend with the fact that different parents have very different ideas about what their kid should be doing and learning in school. What is pushing too hard to one parent will be too easy to another, especially in kindergarten, but it continues all the way through high school. I hear parents even of good students at our middle school complaining about high expectations and excessive work when that has not at all been our experience or opinion. </p>
<p>Marian, I would think that if a kid picks up reading naturally, that would mean the brain was ready, so to speak, and problems would not be created.</p>
<p>My three kids all learned to read at different times and in totally different ways. I don’t think teachers actually had much to do with it, which surprised me at the time. My oldest read cartoons for awhile and then all of a sudden, at age 7, read an entire Roald Dahl novel. My middle one learned step by step in a very linear, almost textbook fashion. My third didn’t really read until third grade. They all played in kindergarten, before any academics were offered at that age, and they have all done fine in their later education in college. </p>
<p>Starting earlier doesn’t accomplish anything. Learning is not a race and what you do or don’t do at age 5 won’t affect your standardized testing in high school.</p>
<p>I have read articles lately that little children are so stressed and burned out from kindergarten that they don’t want to go to school. If a family has a child who is bored by kindergarten there are options for outside school (and sometimes inside school) for more stimulation and challenge, but for children who are not yet ready for academics, the focus in recent years is harmful and there is no way to avoid it.</p>
<p>I so agree compmom. My 5 year old was reading chapter books. On the other hand, he still had potty training issues. I wish I were kidding.As advanced as he was in some areas, he lagged behind in others. Kindergarten with a wise and compassionate teacher was just the place for him, no matter what his reading skills were. </p>
<p>“I have read articles lately that little children are so stressed and burned out from kindergarten that they don’t want to go to school.” But this also happens when a kid is bored.</p>
<p>“If a family has a child who is bored by kindergarten there are options for outside school (and sometimes inside school) for more stimulation and challenge” I don’t think it’s OK for a kid to be bored all day long in school because they can learn outside of school. Those kids may want to do activities after school like the other kids can do–go to the playground, play a musical instrument, whatever. It’s not fair to say, they can get their education on their own time, they don’t need time for those things that other kids do. Why would you think it’s ok for some kids–kids of any ability–to spend all day in school yet not learn anything? Would it be ok for LD kids’ needs to be completely ignored, and make them sit through lessons they aren’t understanding, and say, they can spend their time outside of school in remediation provided by the family (who obviously always has the time, money, and expertise to meet these needs), they’ll learn there, so it’s ok that they don’t learn in school?</p>
<p>We could place kids in more or less academic kindergarten classes based on parent preferences and child readiness. That could work for everyone, but it’s politically impossible because the parents who don’t want their kids “stressed” by “too much” work don’t want anyone else’s child to learn more that theirs in school. </p>
<p>Reading is not simply a skill we need to check off by, say, 3rd grade. For many early readers or gifted kids, it is a very meaningful and important activity. My daughter was already talking about becoming a writer in 4th or 5th grade, based upon her years of extensive reading, and her love for it. She’s been writing for fun and for contests since then. She writes with her friends too. She follows the web pages of her favorite authors and puts the release dates of their next books on her calendar (then begs to be taken to the bookstore). I don’t think she’d be the person she is today if she hadn’t even started reading until 3rd grade. Yes, I pushed her a little to get started. I felt she had the skills in place and just needed a little focused practice. I felt she would enjoy reading if she just got enough simple sight words that it wasn’t such a slow chore to read. And once we struggled a few times through Go Dog Go and Hop on Pop, and a few others, she took off.</p>