Where have all the kindergartners gone?(hechingerreport.org)
hechingerreport.org
Where have all the kindergartners gone?
https://hechingerreport.org/where-have-all-the-kindergartners-gone/
215 comments
> My 3rd grader gets a bit of it through breakout rooms with a couple classmates, but kindergarteners are too young for that...
My daughter’s kindergarten class has multiple break out sessions per day via Zoom. The break out sessions are managed by the teacher.
Remote learning for young children is tough, but I see good teachers making it tolerable. Luckily, out kids are going back to in person schooling after Spring Break is over.
My daughter’s kindergarten class has multiple break out sessions per day via Zoom. The break out sessions are managed by the teacher.
Remote learning for young children is tough, but I see good teachers making it tolerable. Luckily, out kids are going back to in person schooling after Spring Break is over.
What games taught her multiplication?
There are several that are provided by school like mathletics, but the one my kids really got into is called Prodigy[0]
[0] https://www.prodigygame.com/main-en/
[0] https://www.prodigygame.com/main-en/
Thanks!
i just feel really bad for kids whose parents are not tech savvy or rich enough to afford proper broadband and ipads
by the end of this mess some kids are gonna be left so far behind i don't even know if they can ever catch up
by the end of this mess some kids are gonna be left so far behind i don't even know if they can ever catch up
Being in a well funded area helps. Here, the public schools provided chromebooks and meals for pickup to every student.
Unfortunately I hear you that not everyone gets so lucky :(
Unfortunately I hear you that not everyone gets so lucky :(
I went to a Waldorf school for the equivalent of elementary and middle school, which gives me a different perspective on this.
Waldorf kindergartens don't have anything which resembles standard Prussian pedagogy. No desks, no assignments, none of that, and you aren't expected to read or write. It's mostly freeform play, we also learned to bake bread.
Everyone turned out fine. Rudolph Steiner has some, let's say idiosyncratic, theories of child development, but I think his basic thesis that children don't need to learn reading, writing, and maths, before their brains are ready for that information, is sound.
Kindergarten won't be to early for some children, but it will be too early for many. The ones it isn't too early for are just going to learn those things.
These kids are going to be fine, or more accurately, the damage will be from living through the global trauma, not from ordinary kindergarten being interrupted. I feel real compassion for the kids whose parents are forcing them to sit through Zoom school, though. To me it's clear this is the worst of the available options.
Waldorf kindergartens don't have anything which resembles standard Prussian pedagogy. No desks, no assignments, none of that, and you aren't expected to read or write. It's mostly freeform play, we also learned to bake bread.
Everyone turned out fine. Rudolph Steiner has some, let's say idiosyncratic, theories of child development, but I think his basic thesis that children don't need to learn reading, writing, and maths, before their brains are ready for that information, is sound.
Kindergarten won't be to early for some children, but it will be too early for many. The ones it isn't too early for are just going to learn those things.
These kids are going to be fine, or more accurately, the damage will be from living through the global trauma, not from ordinary kindergarten being interrupted. I feel real compassion for the kids whose parents are forcing them to sit through Zoom school, though. To me it's clear this is the worst of the available options.
> Rudolph Steiner has some, let's say idiosyncratic, theories of child development, but I think his basic thesis that children don't need to learn reading, writing, and maths, before their brains are ready for that information, is sound.
FWIW that belief is considered basic developmental science in Germany and informs the early education system there (at least). Maria Montessori was inspired by his work and her system seems for whatever reason to be more accepted in the US.
I was on the school board of a German language school in the US and some of the American parents were frustrated at their kids not being drilled from age 4 or 5 (typically they had a German-speaking spouse who didn't understand that Gadgrind expectation). All the kids, to the best of my knowledge, came out fine but they all of course had parents who could afford (or whose companies could afford) to pay for private schooling so it's the worst of anecdote vs data.
Also all the teachers had masters' degrees, which is unusual in the US but I don't know if that was the result of the German government's selection or was par for the course.
FWIW that belief is considered basic developmental science in Germany and informs the early education system there (at least). Maria Montessori was inspired by his work and her system seems for whatever reason to be more accepted in the US.
I was on the school board of a German language school in the US and some of the American parents were frustrated at their kids not being drilled from age 4 or 5 (typically they had a German-speaking spouse who didn't understand that Gadgrind expectation). All the kids, to the best of my knowledge, came out fine but they all of course had parents who could afford (or whose companies could afford) to pay for private schooling so it's the worst of anecdote vs data.
Also all the teachers had masters' degrees, which is unusual in the US but I don't know if that was the result of the German government's selection or was par for the course.
Yes in Germany you need a master of education to be allowed to teach even elementary school. Teachers are paid pretty well overall and the equivalent of Highschool teachers have done 5 years of university study.
> FWIW that belief is considered basic developmental science in Germany and informs the early education system there (at least).
I suspect the GP was talking more about things like Steiner's belief that a child shouldn't exit kindergarten until they lose a baby tooth. Or that any illness a child develops was something their souls chose before birth, and therefore things like vaccination deny the soul. Or how different races came from places like Atlantis or Lemuria...
Anthroposophy is a whole thing.
Play and social learning is why we enrolled our kid in early childhood with Waldorf, but Anthroposophy is why we got out.
I suspect the GP was talking more about things like Steiner's belief that a child shouldn't exit kindergarten until they lose a baby tooth. Or that any illness a child develops was something their souls chose before birth, and therefore things like vaccination deny the soul. Or how different races came from places like Atlantis or Lemuria...
Anthroposophy is a whole thing.
Play and social learning is why we enrolled our kid in early childhood with Waldorf, but Anthroposophy is why we got out.
> Waldorf kindergartens don't have anything which resembles standard Prussian pedagogy. No desks, no assignments, none of that, and you aren't expected to read or write. It's mostly freeform play, we also learned to bake bread.
Your Waldorf experience was my Kindergarten experience in a US public school in the 80s.
I still have the cookbook we made and remember fondly making all the recipes in class.
Marigolds are still one of my favorite flowers because we planted them in milk cartons to bring home on Mother's day.
I also remember looking up the teacher's skirt because we all sat on a rug in the middle of class rather than desks.
Your Waldorf experience was my Kindergarten experience in a US public school in the 80s.
I still have the cookbook we made and remember fondly making all the recipes in class.
Marigolds are still one of my favorite flowers because we planted them in milk cartons to bring home on Mother's day.
I also remember looking up the teacher's skirt because we all sat on a rug in the middle of class rather than desks.
I recall a lot of coloring, playing outside on a dedicated playground for kindergarteners, and frozen green grapes at snacktime during the summer. Also scheduled naps which I never took. We had tables for coloring and crafts, but not desks, and sat around on the ground whenever the teacher would tell us a story.
There was also this hippy-ish woman who literally drove up in a VW microbus -- crazy that I remember that -- and who taught us a bit about music. Singing and clapping along to syllables are the bits that come to mind.
One other thing is that there were no fences around the school.
It was a good way to grow up, and I'm going to do my best to ensure my kids get at least some of this.
There was also this hippy-ish woman who literally drove up in a VW microbus -- crazy that I remember that -- and who taught us a bit about music. Singing and clapping along to syllables are the bits that come to mind.
One other thing is that there were no fences around the school.
It was a good way to grow up, and I'm going to do my best to ensure my kids get at least some of this.
That is how I remember kindergarten here in Denmark as well. Lots of playtime, songs, puppet theatre, cooking/baking, board games, learning to tie your shoelaces, that sort of thing.
We've also had forest kindergartens for some years now, and if the missus and I ever have kids, they will 100% be attending one of those.
We've also had forest kindergartens for some years now, and if the missus and I ever have kids, they will 100% be attending one of those.
Steiner had all sorts of insane theories about children's development, specifically that they are inhabited by specific spirits according to a 7 year age progression. I'd not consider his esoteric teachings as any valid contribution.
Ideas don't need to be correct to be adaptive.
I went to public school in Canada, and my wife did the same in the US. Neither of us had a kindergarten experience with desks and assignments - it was much like what you describe your experience as.
Perhaps your fancy kindergarten wasn’t as different from public school as you thought?
Perhaps your fancy kindergarten wasn’t as different from public school as you thought?
If you go to a suburban district, the psycho parents demand reading in kindergarten... one parent in my sons class expected her kid to read Harry Potter in grade 1.
I went to a NYC public school in the 80s. We didn’t even start phonics until grade 1.
I went to a NYC public school in the 80s. We didn’t even start phonics until grade 1.
If you want kids to read, they have to start with lots of listening. The cornerstone of language ability is hearing lots and lots of varied speech, and the easiest way to get it is by hearing books read aloud.
Reading in English (i.e. decoding written symbols into pronounced words) is not that hard a skill for typical kids to learn at age 5 if they have done a few years of listening to books read aloud every day, but it does require direct focus for like 15 minutes per day for 6–12 months, and one-on-one help from an adult makes that a lot easier.
Reading in English (i.e. decoding written symbols into pronounced words) is not that hard a skill for typical kids to learn at age 5 if they have done a few years of listening to books read aloud every day, but it does require direct focus for like 15 minutes per day for 6–12 months, and one-on-one help from an adult makes that a lot easier.
> One parent in my sons class expected her kid to read Harry Potter in grade 1.
Some first-graders are capable of that -- but yes, certainly not a reasonable baseline expectation for that age.
Some first-graders are capable of that -- but yes, certainly not a reasonable baseline expectation for that age.
When I was 6 years old, I started reading my family's collection of Jules Verne in Russian translation (I chose the books whose covers looked interesting). I was a reasonably smart kid, but certainly not a genius, not exceptionally talented.
If you find it unreasonable to expect a smart first grader to be able to read Harry Potter, then my reaction is that either written English is unexpectedly much more difficult to learn for a child compared to written Russian, or American parents and teachers are doing an unexpectedly bad job of teaching it.
If you find it unreasonable to expect a smart first grader to be able to read Harry Potter, then my reaction is that either written English is unexpectedly much more difficult to learn for a child compared to written Russian, or American parents and teachers are doing an unexpectedly bad job of teaching it.
Answer: It depends.
When I went to school, we began significant reading in grade 1, when I was 6. NYC public school kindergarten at that time was half day, and focused on social activity, counting, letter recognition, etc. My younger brother was effectively reading on his own at age 4 before kindergarten, mainly because my sister was a huge reader and they read together constantly. She also has a natural talent for teaching.
Remember that kids are very different. My son was born in early January, he has a classmate born in early December. Teachers have to work with both extremes, as well as kids in various family situations that affect social development. There are also brain development factors that apply and don't necessarily level out until 7/8 years old.
My beef up the thread was that some hyper-vigilant parents expect teachers to achieve the possible, but improbably, because they have decided that little Johnny is a genius. The same people will pay $10,000 for soccer leagues, etc.
When I went to school, we began significant reading in grade 1, when I was 6. NYC public school kindergarten at that time was half day, and focused on social activity, counting, letter recognition, etc. My younger brother was effectively reading on his own at age 4 before kindergarten, mainly because my sister was a huge reader and they read together constantly. She also has a natural talent for teaching.
Remember that kids are very different. My son was born in early January, he has a classmate born in early December. Teachers have to work with both extremes, as well as kids in various family situations that affect social development. There are also brain development factors that apply and don't necessarily level out until 7/8 years old.
My beef up the thread was that some hyper-vigilant parents expect teachers to achieve the possible, but improbably, because they have decided that little Johnny is a genius. The same people will pay $10,000 for soccer leagues, etc.
I don't find it unreasonable for a smart first grader, or even kindergartner. I'm unsure whether it is doable for a typical one.
I based my earlier response on what I knew from others as children. But, seeing your response and those of others in this thread, perhaps I was mistaken. Then again:
>American parents and teachers are doing an unexpectedly bad job of teaching it.
I can't speak for American parents but American teachers aren't so good in general.
I based my earlier response on what I knew from others as children. But, seeing your response and those of others in this thread, perhaps I was mistaken. Then again:
>American parents and teachers are doing an unexpectedly bad job of teaching it.
I can't speak for American parents but American teachers aren't so good in general.
> I went to public school in Canada, and my wife did the same in the US. Neither of us had a kindergarten experience with desks and assignments - it was much like what you describe your experience as.
> Perhaps your fancy kindergarten wasn’t as different from public school as you thought?
I went to US public school for kindergarten and first grade, then a Montessori school for grades 2-5. I don't recall desks in kindergarten, but they were definitely out in full force for first grade. The Montessori school didn't have desks for every student, and it sounds similar in some of the other ways: no assignments, more hands-on learning, more play (think we got something like an hour of recess), etc.
There's also likely regional variation. I have a friend who moved to SV, but moved to Redwood City because he thought the public schools closer to San Jose were too cut throat and competitive, and some parents sent their kids to cram schools. I wouldn't be surprised of that kind of attitude rubbed off on the kindergartens and made their curriculums too aggressively academic.
> Perhaps your fancy kindergarten wasn’t as different from public school as you thought?
I went to US public school for kindergarten and first grade, then a Montessori school for grades 2-5. I don't recall desks in kindergarten, but they were definitely out in full force for first grade. The Montessori school didn't have desks for every student, and it sounds similar in some of the other ways: no assignments, more hands-on learning, more play (think we got something like an hour of recess), etc.
There's also likely regional variation. I have a friend who moved to SV, but moved to Redwood City because he thought the public schools closer to San Jose were too cut throat and competitive, and some parents sent their kids to cram schools. I wouldn't be surprised of that kind of attitude rubbed off on the kindergartens and made their curriculums too aggressively academic.
I mean as far as I know this is the norm in the Netherlands. I didn't start reading/writing until age 6-7. Before that it was freeform play with a bunch of implicit learning, I recall a lot of games, songs, painting etc.
My thinking on the matter is: it's kindergarten, play with the damn playdough.
I'm suspicious that we in the West have become obsessed with formalism. What can be measured must be measured. Do kindergartens really need a "curriculum", like I've heard in the US.
I can't help but think we're missing the wood for the trees here. As with everything in life, quantity is not the same as quality. Are we providing kids with a good education, or are we treating education as some kind of manufacturing process with a quota system?
I'm suspicious that we in the West have become obsessed with formalism. What can be measured must be measured. Do kindergartens really need a "curriculum", like I've heard in the US.
I can't help but think we're missing the wood for the trees here. As with everything in life, quantity is not the same as quality. Are we providing kids with a good education, or are we treating education as some kind of manufacturing process with a quota system?
It's made to extract money. If you frame it in that context, text books, tests owned by 3rd party companies, smart boards with overpriced contracts, etc. Becomes pretty clear that no one gives a hoot about your child and education, maybe the super frustrated teacher who still doesn't realize this...
I went to a Waldorf kindergarten which I didn't mind.
My mother hated it; they told her it was not appropriate that I was already able to read.
My mother hated it; they told her it was not appropriate that I was already able to read.
My mother was told that she should not use so many big words around me. Evidently, my vocabulary was a problem for the one-size-fits-all classroom.
The main benefit school provides at age 5 is socialization. If everything is on zoom, I don’t see the point. I agree with you, the kids will be fine.
My local school requires kids to be on Zoom, or it escalates to the DCFS, who can take your kids away, unless you file and get approved homeschooling paperwork.
Can't force us to keep cameras and microphones on, though. School doesn't care. It can check attendance, so it's good with the state.
Can't force us to keep cameras and microphones on, though. School doesn't care. It can check attendance, so it's good with the state.
Growing up in the actual territory of former Prussia, our Kindergarten didn't have any desks nor assignments either.
Everyone turned out fine.
Did they? We have no data. Maybe they did better, maybe they did worse, maybe it makes no difference and everyone turns out fine. But it behooves us to collect a little more data before we toss out the current system. The only hard data I have on Waldorf schools in my area is that they have the lowest percentage of vaccinated kids: <50% vs >90% for public schools. That makes it a hard no for me, and should be cause skepticism in the Waldorf system.
Did they? We have no data. Maybe they did better, maybe they did worse, maybe it makes no difference and everyone turns out fine. But it behooves us to collect a little more data before we toss out the current system. The only hard data I have on Waldorf schools in my area is that they have the lowest percentage of vaccinated kids: <50% vs >90% for public schools. That makes it a hard no for me, and should be cause skepticism in the Waldorf system.
Desks dont imply Prussian pedagogy. No contemporary school system is Prussian, it evolved a lot.
If I want to be snarky, it apparently does not give feel for how social history happens either.
If I want to be snarky, it apparently does not give feel for how social history happens either.
How dare you! We need state-run pre-school to get those kids sitting at desks even earlier!
“Remote learning” is completely fucking useless for kids under a certain age. That age varies by child but covers almost nobody at age 5. If I had a 5-year-old during a pandemic and no school to send them to I’d get them some art supplies and a stick and some musical instruments and tell them to play in the backyard.
This is generally (in my circles at least) what parents do regardless. As in, provide equipment and an environment to have fun and learn.
My anecdotal experience is once kids get to around 5, they start really wanting to form consistent social relationships. Also, if the child has younger siblings, generally they crave some “alone time” but not to be by themselves, to be with other kids their own age without their siblings.
Basically what I’m trying to say is parents do what you’re talking about, but the older kids get, the more they need and it’s not as simple as you’d expect.
My anecdotal experience is once kids get to around 5, they start really wanting to form consistent social relationships. Also, if the child has younger siblings, generally they crave some “alone time” but not to be by themselves, to be with other kids their own age without their siblings.
Basically what I’m trying to say is parents do what you’re talking about, but the older kids get, the more they need and it’s not as simple as you’d expect.
Yes... then form a pod with another kid or kids and let them play. A 5 year old shouldn’t be trying to do anything over videoconferencing. Hell my toddler won’t even talk to his grandfather on videoconference, who is his absolute favorite person in the world.
My daughter did remote kindergarten up until March when they let them return to class. She learned to read and do math remotely. Reading was done with small breakout groups of up to 3 kids all taking turns reading a book. Most of class was art projects and we received a packet every month filled with construction paper, coloring materials, and in-class worksheets. I am sure she learning everything a kindergartener is suppose to learn except the social aspect. Though during recess/snack time, the kids just chatted on google meet with each other. She made friends we set up zoom play dates.
She also google meet expert now, she pins her friends to see what they are doing. It was quite amusing the first week where the teacher taught a bunch of 4 and 5 years old how to use google meet and the IPad with large print outs of all the icons.
She also google meet expert now, she pins her friends to see what they are doing. It was quite amusing the first week where the teacher taught a bunch of 4 and 5 years old how to use google meet and the IPad with large print outs of all the icons.
[deleted]
Remote’s a disaster for little kids, and about as much work for one or both parents as just teaching their kid some stuff themselves. If you don’t need special reading or speech intervention then well-chosen apps and a workbook can replace most of the useful actual instruction in kindergarten. Maybe just YouTube how to teach the alphabet correctly for phonics and you’re golden.
[deleted]
I work in edtech, and I have a child who did remote school for the last 1/3 of kindergarten and the first 2/3 (and counting) of first grade.
Although the article talks about the issue of first grade readiness, I think the bigger problem schools are going to face is that there will be an enormous range of returning students.
Some students will have had very little academic exposure (due to lack of technology/broadband/area for learning) and some students will have had their education supplemented by their parents. The impact of these supplements can be tremendous, since they are personalized to the specific student. Also, students have more spare time out of school, since Zoom school takes up fewer hours than regular school (no bus ride, shorter lunch, no time spent lining up to wash hands or getting backpacks).
Schools will have to decide how they want to deal with the great disparities that they will see next fall (across all grade levels). My guess is there will be much less stigma attached to repeating a grade than in normal times. I hope this is the case, because it would not be in the best interest of under-performing students to pass them along to the next grade if they're not ready.
Although the article talks about the issue of first grade readiness, I think the bigger problem schools are going to face is that there will be an enormous range of returning students.
Some students will have had very little academic exposure (due to lack of technology/broadband/area for learning) and some students will have had their education supplemented by their parents. The impact of these supplements can be tremendous, since they are personalized to the specific student. Also, students have more spare time out of school, since Zoom school takes up fewer hours than regular school (no bus ride, shorter lunch, no time spent lining up to wash hands or getting backpacks).
Schools will have to decide how they want to deal with the great disparities that they will see next fall (across all grade levels). My guess is there will be much less stigma attached to repeating a grade than in normal times. I hope this is the case, because it would not be in the best interest of under-performing students to pass them along to the next grade if they're not ready.
Common tactic is to teach at the level of what the school wants kids to be at.
No matter how many or if any kids are at that level.
A parent of older kids told me that if you sign your kid up for outside math programs, you shouldn’t tell the school. If the teacher finds out, they’ll figure your kid is taken care of for math and will ignore him/her.
Amazingly, this was a parent whose kids attend one of the wealthiest public schools in SV (Woodside Elementary, where even the teachers drive luxury cars...).
Amazingly, this was a parent whose kids attend one of the wealthiest public schools in SV (Woodside Elementary, where even the teachers drive luxury cars...).
I find a lot of private schools are trying to justify their fees by offering “virtual learning” which is just a teacher trying to apply in-person techniques in front of a camera, and then a parent struggling to keep the child interested in the (non-interactive) screen. This is doomed to failure and entirely unnecessary and pointless at the kindergarten level.
Also if the parents really want to and help the child, it’s entirely possible for them to be reading, counting and doing basic math by age 4.
Also if the parents really want to and help the child, it’s entirely possible for them to be reading, counting and doing basic math by age 4.
I'd love to see a source / more information about your claim regarding kids of age 4.
I started teaching my daughter letters at the age of three (eg "that letter looks like a snake, what does a snake say?") She was able to read basic signage while going around town before she turned four. She could independently read non-trivial books by the age of five. She was learning the Linux command line by the age of six.
Young children learning to read isn't usually about their own innate ability. It's about whether they have someone who reliably puts in the hours with them. It probably also helps to model the behaviour, so they see you reading books yourself in your spare time.
Young children learning to read isn't usually about their own innate ability. It's about whether they have someone who reliably puts in the hours with them. It probably also helps to model the behaviour, so they see you reading books yourself in your spare time.
And as someone else who's kids did this:
You end up with no books that are an appropriate reading challenge but also developmentally appropriate, and a kid who is really bored in school and not using the time to build good study and homework habits.
I think it's a neat party trick to have a kid who is 4 and a fluent reader, and that it has some utility... but I might emphasize different things if I had it to do over again.
At the same time, calling out math problems to the back seat was a way that I kept kids busy during road trips, and I wouldn't change that at all :D
You end up with no books that are an appropriate reading challenge but also developmentally appropriate, and a kid who is really bored in school and not using the time to build good study and homework habits.
I think it's a neat party trick to have a kid who is 4 and a fluent reader, and that it has some utility... but I might emphasize different things if I had it to do over again.
At the same time, calling out math problems to the back seat was a way that I kept kids busy during road trips, and I wouldn't change that at all :D
> You end up with no books that are an appropriate reading challenge but also developmentally appropriate
What? It's just the opposite. What about the books that a parent typically reads kids that age at bedtime? Those are generally above the reading level, but at the developmental level.
Indeed, the whole annoying thing with kids learning to read is that -- at least for kids who have been read to frequently -- their taste in books is well above the "see spot run" level that their reading is at.
At age 4 and 5, my kids were into Ramona, Roald Dahl, Charlotte's Web, Pipi Longstocking, etc. It took them til age 6 or 7 to be able to read those comfortably.
Learning to read early is in no way a curse, or a "party trick." For my kids, and many others, it has instilled a love of reading. Also the notion of a "party trick" is gross, like it's something the parents do to show off. The kids who learn to read early do so because they are interested in it.
> At the same time, calling out math problems to the back seat was a way that I kept kids busy during road trips, and I wouldn't change that at all
Ah, so you're just biased against kids who read early.
What? It's just the opposite. What about the books that a parent typically reads kids that age at bedtime? Those are generally above the reading level, but at the developmental level.
Indeed, the whole annoying thing with kids learning to read is that -- at least for kids who have been read to frequently -- their taste in books is well above the "see spot run" level that their reading is at.
At age 4 and 5, my kids were into Ramona, Roald Dahl, Charlotte's Web, Pipi Longstocking, etc. It took them til age 6 or 7 to be able to read those comfortably.
Learning to read early is in no way a curse, or a "party trick." For my kids, and many others, it has instilled a love of reading. Also the notion of a "party trick" is gross, like it's something the parents do to show off. The kids who learn to read early do so because they are interested in it.
> At the same time, calling out math problems to the back seat was a way that I kept kids busy during road trips, and I wouldn't change that at all
Ah, so you're just biased against kids who read early.
> What? It's just the opposite. What about the books that a parent typically reads kids that age at bedtime? Those are generally above the reading level, but at the developmental level.
All those "adult-directed" books, heavy on pictures, etc-- are not optimal for a skilled early reader. Yes, they can read them, but they read them fast.
There's also what e.g. Lexile calls "NC" https://lexile.com/parents-students/find-books-at-the-right-... -- nonconforming. These are great. Simpler, developmentally-appropriate situations, higher level writing. But there's not many... E.g. you can't even find the book they name as an example anymore.
When you have a kid who is ready to read chapter books with long words, but all of them talk about social situations he doesn't really have the experience to understand, you have a problem. My boys would read books and know everything that happened in them... but really not be able to understand why someone would do something described or how they'd be feeling in a given situation.
> Learning to read early is in no way a curse, or a "party trick."
It's not a curse, but it's not well-correlated with better outcomes.
> For my kids, and many others, it has instilled a love of reading.
My kids eventually got back to a love of reading, but the hole in reading material around 2nd grade and having to read below-level books was a speedbump in it. And it's still hard. My 4th grader should be reading young adult books, but he still thinks kissing is gross...
> like it's something the parents do to show off.
Oh, trust me, that applies too, to plenty of families.
> Ah, so you're just biased against kids who read early.
??? I say that my kids read very early above. My kids could have read Charlotte's Web at age 5, and given you the play by play, and known an appropriate amount of the vocabulary... but they would not understand any of the subtexts or real messages until much later.
All those "adult-directed" books, heavy on pictures, etc-- are not optimal for a skilled early reader. Yes, they can read them, but they read them fast.
There's also what e.g. Lexile calls "NC" https://lexile.com/parents-students/find-books-at-the-right-... -- nonconforming. These are great. Simpler, developmentally-appropriate situations, higher level writing. But there's not many... E.g. you can't even find the book they name as an example anymore.
When you have a kid who is ready to read chapter books with long words, but all of them talk about social situations he doesn't really have the experience to understand, you have a problem. My boys would read books and know everything that happened in them... but really not be able to understand why someone would do something described or how they'd be feeling in a given situation.
> Learning to read early is in no way a curse, or a "party trick."
It's not a curse, but it's not well-correlated with better outcomes.
> For my kids, and many others, it has instilled a love of reading.
My kids eventually got back to a love of reading, but the hole in reading material around 2nd grade and having to read below-level books was a speedbump in it. And it's still hard. My 4th grader should be reading young adult books, but he still thinks kissing is gross...
> like it's something the parents do to show off.
Oh, trust me, that applies too, to plenty of families.
> Ah, so you're just biased against kids who read early.
??? I say that my kids read very early above. My kids could have read Charlotte's Web at age 5, and given you the play by play, and known an appropriate amount of the vocabulary... but they would not understand any of the subtexts or real messages until much later.
is it necessary to understand the subtext or messages when reading a book the first time? isn't it enough for the kids to enjoy the story at the level they can understand it?
sure, teenage romance novels are inappropriate for a 10 year old, but there are plenty of adult adventure stories that do make sense to a 10 year old even if they don't understand every detail in it.
white fang, horatio hornblower, adventures of people traveling the world on bikes, horseback or other ways were among my favorites where i can't remember anything inappropriate for any age. i think huckleberry finn too, but i didn't read that one myself.
in fact i don't even remember reading anything that was targeted at a particular age. but even among childrens books i think there is plenty of choices with a wide age range. roald dahl, erich kästner and many other well known childrensbook authors have written stories that are enjoyable at a wide age range.
i find it hard to imagine that there wasn't anything enjoyable for your 2nd grader.
sure, teenage romance novels are inappropriate for a 10 year old, but there are plenty of adult adventure stories that do make sense to a 10 year old even if they don't understand every detail in it.
white fang, horatio hornblower, adventures of people traveling the world on bikes, horseback or other ways were among my favorites where i can't remember anything inappropriate for any age. i think huckleberry finn too, but i didn't read that one myself.
in fact i don't even remember reading anything that was targeted at a particular age. but even among childrens books i think there is plenty of choices with a wide age range. roald dahl, erich kästner and many other well known childrensbook authors have written stories that are enjoyable at a wide age range.
i find it hard to imagine that there wasn't anything enjoyable for your 2nd grader.
> It's not a curse, but it's not well-correlated with better outcomes.
You seem to have been implying in all your posts that it's not just "not well-correlated," but that it's explicitly correlated with worse outcomes.
Use of such scientific terminology implies that there is evidence of this. Is there?
You seem to have been implying in all your posts that it's not just "not well-correlated," but that it's explicitly correlated with worse outcomes.
Use of such scientific terminology implies that there is evidence of this. Is there?
No, I'm not saying it's correlated with worse outcomes.
I'm saying there's barely any signal of being an early reader years later in academic performance (and some of what little remains may be explained by those with disabilities being less represented in early readers), and there's plenty of small practical downsides. Therefore, it's something that's OK if it happens, but quite alright if you go down another path.
And there's especially little evidence of receiving explicit reading instruction in school earlier results in better academic outcomes. But lots and lots of parents now try and seek out more "academic" kindergartens and pressure their kindergarten to spend more time on literacy skills.
You can even find studies that show minor disadvantages in later performance from earlier reading instruction (e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S08852... ) but I don't really believe these.
I'm saying there's barely any signal of being an early reader years later in academic performance (and some of what little remains may be explained by those with disabilities being less represented in early readers), and there's plenty of small practical downsides. Therefore, it's something that's OK if it happens, but quite alright if you go down another path.
And there's especially little evidence of receiving explicit reading instruction in school earlier results in better academic outcomes. But lots and lots of parents now try and seek out more "academic" kindergartens and pressure their kindergarten to spend more time on literacy skills.
You can even find studies that show minor disadvantages in later performance from earlier reading instruction (e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S08852... ) but I don't really believe these.
> No, I'm not saying it's correlated with worse outcomes.
You said it leads to "You end up with a kid who is really bored in school and not using the time to build good study and homework habits."
That's what I've been pushing back against. Perhaps in your personal anecdote it did, but I don't think it's fair to say that parents should discourage their kids from reading early because they'll get bored in school and do worse.
I don't think there's any evidence that your personal "downsides" are necessarily the norm in any way, or that they are worse than the "downsides" of a kid who takes their time learning to read (which can also exist).
I agree that there's no evidence that there's an advantage, but you've certainly been saying that there are disadvantages, and I don't agree that those are much beyond anecdotes.
You said it leads to "You end up with a kid who is really bored in school and not using the time to build good study and homework habits."
That's what I've been pushing back against. Perhaps in your personal anecdote it did, but I don't think it's fair to say that parents should discourage their kids from reading early because they'll get bored in school and do worse.
I don't think there's any evidence that your personal "downsides" are necessarily the norm in any way, or that they are worse than the "downsides" of a kid who takes their time learning to read (which can also exist).
I agree that there's no evidence that there's an advantage, but you've certainly been saying that there are disadvantages, and I don't agree that those are much beyond anecdotes.
> You said it leads to "You end up with a kid who is really bored in school and not using the time to build good study and homework habits."
They do show up in the study I posted, and there's about 60 years of literature on a high prevalence of later underachievement, increased truancy, etc on students that enter school above academic level.
You can even find individual very alarming data points, like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713445/
(Please don't jump on me for it being 1920's era education; I understand the limitations, but if you want results from a lifelong study, the early data points need to be a long time ago).
> but I don't think it's fair to say that parents should discourage their kids from reading early because they'll get bored in school and do worse.
I've never said that. Indeed, again, I've said mine read early. If I had it to do over again, I might lend a little less support to reading in particular and choose other things to spend time on.
> you've certainly been saying that there are disadvantages, and I don't agree that those are much beyond anecdotes.
I haven't been trying to say that. Based on both the literature and my experiences, I personally believe that it's quantitively neutral with respect to later academics, and that there are some qualitative downsides and upsides. In the parent community at my school, there are some that very aggressively push reading at their 4 year old, and--- given the literature and my experience, I believe there is no reason to do this and it may create harms.
This is just an anecdote, but... I have 3 kids that are incredibly academically strong according to the assessments of their teachers... who are also way quicker than most of the students I teach to burst into tears at the first sign of difficulty, and are able to get away with much lower levels of attention given to their work than peers. There will be a reckoning, at some point, when they end up facing appropriately challenging material in school and don't know how to deal with it.
They do show up in the study I posted, and there's about 60 years of literature on a high prevalence of later underachievement, increased truancy, etc on students that enter school above academic level.
You can even find individual very alarming data points, like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713445/
(Please don't jump on me for it being 1920's era education; I understand the limitations, but if you want results from a lifelong study, the early data points need to be a long time ago).
> but I don't think it's fair to say that parents should discourage their kids from reading early because they'll get bored in school and do worse.
I've never said that. Indeed, again, I've said mine read early. If I had it to do over again, I might lend a little less support to reading in particular and choose other things to spend time on.
> you've certainly been saying that there are disadvantages, and I don't agree that those are much beyond anecdotes.
I haven't been trying to say that. Based on both the literature and my experiences, I personally believe that it's quantitively neutral with respect to later academics, and that there are some qualitative downsides and upsides. In the parent community at my school, there are some that very aggressively push reading at their 4 year old, and--- given the literature and my experience, I believe there is no reason to do this and it may create harms.
This is just an anecdote, but... I have 3 kids that are incredibly academically strong according to the assessments of their teachers... who are also way quicker than most of the students I teach to burst into tears at the first sign of difficulty, and are able to get away with much lower levels of attention given to their work than peers. There will be a reckoning, at some point, when they end up facing appropriately challenging material in school and don't know how to deal with it.
> choose other things to spend time on.
What are things you'd have wished to spend time on instead?
What are things you'd have wished to spend time on instead?
Once they showed interest in reading, we did a fair bit of literacy practice. In retrospect, I suspect they still would have acquired reading skills early (just less so) if we hadn't, and if not, the Kindergarten and first grade literacy instruction we have available to us is pretty good.
So, maybe substitute reading to them for some of that time, and looking at science books, and playing with microscopes, etc. Note we did all of those things too, but I'd change the proportions a bit.
So, maybe substitute reading to them for some of that time, and looking at science books, and playing with microscopes, etc. Note we did all of those things too, but I'd change the proportions a bit.
> My 4th grader should be reading young adult books, but he still thinks kissing is gross..
Do most kids actually feel it's gross, or do adults and other kids just condition them to say they feel it's gross?
I remember in kindergarten a girl named Meghan playing some kind of trick where she trapped my hand and then kissed me as if it were some kind of punishment. I remember feeling a bit awkward, but also good about it. Meghan was the one girl I invited to my birthday party later that year.
I remember starting to tell my mom the story about being kissed that day after school, being a bit worried she might make fun of me. I'm sure she was just trying to help me process my feelings, but I felt like the way she asked me how I felt was very leading. I got worried my mom would make fun of me and so I lied and said I found it gross.
Now, I think misread my mom, and maybe I'm projecting, but I think a lot of kids like kissing much earlier than they'll admit.
The next year, we went to different schools. That year we prepared for at least a couple weeks for the first teacher going into space. We all went into the school library to watch the Space Shuttle launch. It exploded. Teachers were visibly shocked. I announced that it exploded, and a teacher told me "No, Karl, we don't know what happened. Let's go back to our classrooms now." and I responded "Those are the rocket boosters. The rest of it is gone. It exploded." With 20/20 hindsight, I would have prepared something better than a transparent lie, but it's hard to blame them for lying. At that age, I didn't have a sense that adults lied, but I realized sometimes they hid information from kids. I had heard rumors that "Santa is just your parents" from older kids. That was around the time I brought up the reality of Santa with my parents, and their response was "well, what do you think?". So, I didn't feel lied to or angry about the shuttle explosion, but I remember feeling confused as to why something was being hidden.
Another year or two later, my grandmother became very ill. I remember coming down to the basement quite a bit after my bedtime and finding my dad at the Apple IIe. When he asked me why I wasn't sleeping, I told him I was worried, and asked him how we knew heaven existed. Thank Goodness Dad gave me an honest age-appropriate answer, explaining that he hoped there was a heaven but didn't have any evidence, and trying to explain that worrying about it wasn't fruitful. Anything less honest could really have screwed up my trust in any authority figures for a long long time.
In general, I think kids understand way more than they let on.
Addendum: Meghan and I were back in the same school starting in 9th grade, and we were in the same 9th grade science class. She told me "My mom said we were in the same preschool." I'm not sure if she was trying to see if I remembered my crush. I wasn't interested in her in high school, but I did remember that the Gobots paint-by-numbers painting she gave me as a birthday present in kindergarten was still hidden away between my bookshelf and the wall. No socially awkward 14 year old is going to admit to a mad kindergarten crush on a girl who doesn't remember who they are, so my response was just something like "Oh, okay."
Do most kids actually feel it's gross, or do adults and other kids just condition them to say they feel it's gross?
I remember in kindergarten a girl named Meghan playing some kind of trick where she trapped my hand and then kissed me as if it were some kind of punishment. I remember feeling a bit awkward, but also good about it. Meghan was the one girl I invited to my birthday party later that year.
I remember starting to tell my mom the story about being kissed that day after school, being a bit worried she might make fun of me. I'm sure she was just trying to help me process my feelings, but I felt like the way she asked me how I felt was very leading. I got worried my mom would make fun of me and so I lied and said I found it gross.
Now, I think misread my mom, and maybe I'm projecting, but I think a lot of kids like kissing much earlier than they'll admit.
The next year, we went to different schools. That year we prepared for at least a couple weeks for the first teacher going into space. We all went into the school library to watch the Space Shuttle launch. It exploded. Teachers were visibly shocked. I announced that it exploded, and a teacher told me "No, Karl, we don't know what happened. Let's go back to our classrooms now." and I responded "Those are the rocket boosters. The rest of it is gone. It exploded." With 20/20 hindsight, I would have prepared something better than a transparent lie, but it's hard to blame them for lying. At that age, I didn't have a sense that adults lied, but I realized sometimes they hid information from kids. I had heard rumors that "Santa is just your parents" from older kids. That was around the time I brought up the reality of Santa with my parents, and their response was "well, what do you think?". So, I didn't feel lied to or angry about the shuttle explosion, but I remember feeling confused as to why something was being hidden.
Another year or two later, my grandmother became very ill. I remember coming down to the basement quite a bit after my bedtime and finding my dad at the Apple IIe. When he asked me why I wasn't sleeping, I told him I was worried, and asked him how we knew heaven existed. Thank Goodness Dad gave me an honest age-appropriate answer, explaining that he hoped there was a heaven but didn't have any evidence, and trying to explain that worrying about it wasn't fruitful. Anything less honest could really have screwed up my trust in any authority figures for a long long time.
In general, I think kids understand way more than they let on.
Addendum: Meghan and I were back in the same school starting in 9th grade, and we were in the same 9th grade science class. She told me "My mom said we were in the same preschool." I'm not sure if she was trying to see if I remembered my crush. I wasn't interested in her in high school, but I did remember that the Gobots paint-by-numbers painting she gave me as a birthday present in kindergarten was still hidden away between my bookshelf and the wall. No socially awkward 14 year old is going to admit to a mad kindergarten crush on a girl who doesn't remember who they are, so my response was just something like "Oh, okay."
:) I enjoyed your anecdotes. I agree the face kids present about things is not how they actually feel. My point was just-- a lot of YA stuff is about teen and young adult stories, and doesn't entirely make sense to younger kids.
> I responded "Those are the rocket boosters. The rest of it is gone. It exploded."
Of course, the truth is far worse-- the rest of it was not gone.
I agree that we should try and tell kids the whole and honest story about as much as possible.
> I responded "Those are the rocket boosters. The rest of it is gone. It exploded."
Of course, the truth is far worse-- the rest of it was not gone.
I agree that we should try and tell kids the whole and honest story about as much as possible.
I really focused in on the one line, because I'm really curious. I was a deeply odd child in many ways, and I'm curious if I was odd or typical in just pretending to be grossed out by kissing.
I think a whole lot of human behavior, from elementary school on, is doing what you think you're expected to do rather than acting based upon how you really feel. Social pressures are important.
And kissing might not be "gross", per se, but it sure is weird, and not something that we really understood back then-- one of those adult things that was kind of out of our world. And did we have the tools to explain that nuance, when people are looking at us funny, when we're 6?
And kissing might not be "gross", per se, but it sure is weird, and not something that we really understood back then-- one of those adult things that was kind of out of our world. And did we have the tools to explain that nuance, when people are looking at us funny, when we're 6?
My personal experience as an early reader lines up pretty well with the post you're replying to. School was interesting, but the lack of challenge meant that I didn't really develop a lot of habits that would have been really beneficial later on.
Conversely, rather than be held back by not reading as early, I wish there were more opportunities for students who were well past their peers but not so much that they could skip a grade. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks to not having much choice in schools is being stuck with the lowest common denominator of expectation for students.
Conversely, rather than be held back by not reading as early, I wish there were more opportunities for students who were well past their peers but not so much that they could skip a grade. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks to not having much choice in schools is being stuck with the lowest common denominator of expectation for students.
I think the bad study habits thing isn't really specific to learning to read early though. Even if you were deprived of all outside of school reading you probably wouldn't have been particularly challenged by school. So it's not something that could be changed by "not encouraging early reading", it's something that can really only be changed by revamping our school system, or being lucky enough to have parents with the background/resources necessary to provide academic challenges outside of the school.
I also think a lot more kids would be academically able to skip a grade than currently do. Skipping forward can be a nightmare socially, unless you do the skip really early and not more than a year or so ahead.
When I was in 3rd grade the teacher actually told my parents to move me to a better school if they could - and they were willing/able to afford the tuition to send me to a good private school, but I liked my friends and refused to switch. I wish there were a good way to disentangle the social and babysitting elements of school from the academic ones somewhat. That could allow students to progress at a more personalized pace.
I also think a lot more kids would be academically able to skip a grade than currently do. Skipping forward can be a nightmare socially, unless you do the skip really early and not more than a year or so ahead.
When I was in 3rd grade the teacher actually told my parents to move me to a better school if they could - and they were willing/able to afford the tuition to send me to a good private school, but I liked my friends and refused to switch. I wish there were a good way to disentangle the social and babysitting elements of school from the academic ones somewhat. That could allow students to progress at a more personalized pace.
that's what montessori is doing. they actually mix kids over a three year age-range into the same class. kids learning faster don't cause a problem at all. the older kids take part in teaching the younger ones, so even if a child already completed the curriculum, there is no end in interesting activities to do that they learn something from.
Yeah it's possible things have changed in the last 20 years but when I was growing up any pressure to read above grade level was purely social. I remember showing up to kindergarten very proud that I was reading Ramona, and one of my friends totally dismissed it because he was reading Harry Potter. So of course I begged my parents for Harry Potter after that, which lead to a pretty good run of advancing my reading over a couple years while "competing" with my friend.
It is true I read a bunch of books in early elementary years that I definitely did not have the ability to understand on a higher level, like Animal Farm and Frankenstein. But I still think I got a lot out of the experience. It's funny because I was totally glued to those books at the time, but then when we started reading "real" books for school around grade 7 I lost interest. Perhaps my early fascination was more with the mechanics of language than it was with any broader themes or symbolism. Or maybe I just hate being told to do things, probably a bit of both.
So yeah, I think reading early can be great and if the child is showing an interest in that it is great to encourage. I wish the teachers/admins at my school were as helpful as my parents/peers, but instead they forced everybody to do assignments using a particular pool of books each year based on age. In first grade my mom ended up doing a "book report" on Make Way for Ducklings because I straight up refused.
I do agree it shouldn't be pressured if the child isn't into it though. Different kids are different, so of course schooling is going to require different approaches.
It is true I read a bunch of books in early elementary years that I definitely did not have the ability to understand on a higher level, like Animal Farm and Frankenstein. But I still think I got a lot out of the experience. It's funny because I was totally glued to those books at the time, but then when we started reading "real" books for school around grade 7 I lost interest. Perhaps my early fascination was more with the mechanics of language than it was with any broader themes or symbolism. Or maybe I just hate being told to do things, probably a bit of both.
So yeah, I think reading early can be great and if the child is showing an interest in that it is great to encourage. I wish the teachers/admins at my school were as helpful as my parents/peers, but instead they forced everybody to do assignments using a particular pool of books each year based on age. In first grade my mom ended up doing a "book report" on Make Way for Ducklings because I straight up refused.
I do agree it shouldn't be pressured if the child isn't into it though. Different kids are different, so of course schooling is going to require different approaches.
> In first grade my mom ended up doing a "book report" on Make Way for Ducklings because I straight up refused.
See, and that's its own bummer. Make Way for Ducklings is a gorgeous book. Its Lexile measure isn't shabby for a 1st grader, either... but it's not a great book for kids to read on their own (hence it is "AD" -- or adult-directed).
See, and that's its own bummer. Make Way for Ducklings is a gorgeous book. Its Lexile measure isn't shabby for a 1st grader, either... but it's not a great book for kids to read on their own (hence it is "AD" -- or adult-directed).
I actually ended up buying the book when I moved to Boston and really enjoyed the illustrations, so I guess I sort of made up for it haha.
I think most kids can do this. All 3 of my kids have been able to read, write a sentence (with very bad handwriting), and understand the concept of repeated addition and multiply slowly before age 4.
It's also only very poorly correlated with better academic outcomes overall.
It's also only very poorly correlated with better academic outcomes overall.
You won't get any, instead you'll get a stream of anecdotes. Children's development schedule varies wildly, not on a fixed and consistent timetable that lines up with public school curricula.
It's also completely unnecessary to teach a kid that before age 6.
Depending on the child you may be unable to avoid it before the age of six.
As best I can remember, I taught myself to read by nagging my parents constantly about what certain words were and how to spell them. This would have been around four years of age. I knew it was a secret adult code with mystical powers. And I wanted in real bad.
I do wonder if the child simply wanting to learn to read is a factor. Perhaps some do not see any use in it, just misery. For me, while I was a quick learner compared to most, it still wasn't easy. I remember frustration and, because I was four or five, some literal tears. If I did not have a strong motivation, or if I had more difficulty with the concept, or if I had a really negative experience, would I have been more prone to developing a mental block of some kind, or an aversion to the effort?
As best I can remember, I taught myself to read by nagging my parents constantly about what certain words were and how to spell them. This would have been around four years of age. I knew it was a secret adult code with mystical powers. And I wanted in real bad.
I do wonder if the child simply wanting to learn to read is a factor. Perhaps some do not see any use in it, just misery. For me, while I was a quick learner compared to most, it still wasn't easy. I remember frustration and, because I was four or five, some literal tears. If I did not have a strong motivation, or if I had more difficulty with the concept, or if I had a really negative experience, would I have been more prone to developing a mental block of some kind, or an aversion to the effort?
Just as it is strictly speaking unnecessary to teach your kids to swim or to cycle or play an instrument.
Sometimes we do things just for fun.
If your kid enjoys learning how to read, and you have the time, by all means, teach them.
Sometimes we do things just for fun.
If your kid enjoys learning how to read, and you have the time, by all means, teach them.
It is unnecessary, but it would also be silly to pass on the opportunity if the child shows interest - one more way to keep them entertained, and they learn useful stuff to boot.
Expose them to numbers, letters and reading. If they are interested they’ll soak it up and learn almost by themselves. If not, it’s fine to not push it - as you say it will get hammered into them in due course.
Learn to listen to your child :)
Expose them to numbers, letters and reading. If they are interested they’ll soak it up and learn almost by themselves. If not, it’s fine to not push it - as you say it will get hammered into them in due course.
Learn to listen to your child :)
That may be true, and many children on different developmental paths end up at the same location. It is also true that most children love to learn. Teaching these items to children can instill lifelong habits of learning and innate curiousity about the world.
Why is it about what's "necessary"? There is nothing wrong with wanting to pass on a love of learning, and recognising the ability of a child to participate in the culture of the mind.
You don't need to teach multiplication and reading at age four to teach a love of learning and participating in a culture of mind, and pushing it a year or too early is just a less efficient way to teach those skills.
Why are you focusing on multiplication? That was one aspect out of what was being replied to.
I mean it's well known that you can teach young children complex cognitive skills. There are preschoolers with high competence at difficult musical instruments and sports skills for example.
I don't see, and haven't found in relevant reading or experience, any way reading that early is more valuable to the child than anything else they could be taught.
All it really announces is what skills the most influential adults in the kid's life value.
I don't see, and haven't found in relevant reading or experience, any way reading that early is more valuable to the child than anything else they could be taught.
All it really announces is what skills the most influential adults in the kid's life value.
Who cares about a slight loss of efficiency?
Just don't push them, if they don't want to. If they show an interest, feel free to teach them.
Just don't push them, if they don't want to. If they show an interest, feel free to teach them.
I don't know about sources, but I was reading new books by myself at age 3. My mom read bedtime stories to me quite a lot and I was (for whatever reason), very motivated to understand those words.
I don't know if I knew any math at that point, but I feel like I could probably count up to 5.
I don't know if I knew any math at that point, but I feel like I could probably count up to 5.
I was the same way, except apparently I just figured out how to read by watching my parents point at the words as they read and understanding the patterns. (Nobody realized until decades later that I was autistic and had a superpower with patterns.)
But I was the oldest, so neither of them figured out that was unusual until my pre-k teachers pulled them aside after my first day and were like, "Did you know smeej can read? Not look at pictures and make up a story. Lots of kids do that. I mean books without pictures." My folks thought nothing of it.
Even now, I'm told the way I read is weird. I don't read a word at a time. I read blocks of text several lines long all at once. I don't have to subvocalize each word.
In the end, it all comes down to how this child is developing, not how some abstract theoretical child "ought" to develop.
The trouble with schooling is that it's trying to make one size fit too many. Separating classrooms by ages instead of educating children in flexible cohorts based on interest and skill makes kids who develop later--or even just who are chronologically younger than most of their classmates--feel "dumb," but it doesn't have to be that way.
There's no reason any child needs to learn at the same pace as any other, or even that children need to learn subjects in some sort of balance.
It might simplify things for the instructors, and their instructors, but it happens at the expense of the children.
But I was the oldest, so neither of them figured out that was unusual until my pre-k teachers pulled them aside after my first day and were like, "Did you know smeej can read? Not look at pictures and make up a story. Lots of kids do that. I mean books without pictures." My folks thought nothing of it.
Even now, I'm told the way I read is weird. I don't read a word at a time. I read blocks of text several lines long all at once. I don't have to subvocalize each word.
In the end, it all comes down to how this child is developing, not how some abstract theoretical child "ought" to develop.
The trouble with schooling is that it's trying to make one size fit too many. Separating classrooms by ages instead of educating children in flexible cohorts based on interest and skill makes kids who develop later--or even just who are chronologically younger than most of their classmates--feel "dumb," but it doesn't have to be that way.
There's no reason any child needs to learn at the same pace as any other, or even that children need to learn subjects in some sort of balance.
It might simplify things for the instructors, and their instructors, but it happens at the expense of the children.
Wait people subvocalise each word once they've learned to read?
> I read blocks of text several lines long all at once.
Hello, spirit brother!
> Separating classrooms by ages instead of educating children in flexible cohorts based on interest and skill makes kids who develop later--or even just who are chronologically younger than most of their classmates--feel "dumb," but it doesn't have to be that way.
I agree this would be superior to what we have (here in the US.)
Hello, spirit brother!
> Separating classrooms by ages instead of educating children in flexible cohorts based on interest and skill makes kids who develop later--or even just who are chronologically younger than most of their classmates--feel "dumb," but it doesn't have to be that way.
I agree this would be superior to what we have (here in the US.)
Pure anecdote but my kid started sight reading around 2.5 and was legitimately reading at about three. We thought she might be purely sight reading until we brought home new books and she'd read them. She's just over 3.5 and has moved on to "chapter books." (Nothing over 25 pages or so with 3_4 page chapters.) She learned to read by being read to and answering her questions and learning the sounds and then trying them. She's just starting to spell words over four characters and math is still tricky (only tried addition) but she's definitely literate.
I won't say it's possible for every kid but it's definitely not impossible.
I won't say it's possible for every kid but it's definitely not impossible.
I apparently did the same thing as your child. There was one book in particular I had read to me a lot to the point where I memorized it, and from there I largely learned what each letter does.
I think intelligence is a factor, but the innate desire to read is critical.
I think intelligence is a factor, but the innate desire to read is critical.
I'm absolutely amazed by how much detailed Minecraft knowledge a 3/4 year old can retain from YouTube videos. If parents find some way to redirect that capacity to academic knowledge, I'm sure it is also possible.
For the older generation, the equivalents were Pokemon or dinosaur knowledge.
Anecdotally, quite a few Singaporeans I know learned to read before they turned three. Usually the parents taught them.
(In contrast, some of my German friends boast proudly of riding a bike at that age.)
(In contrast, some of my German friends boast proudly of riding a bike at that age.)
> ...quite a few Singaporeans I know learned to read before they turned three.
In what language? English, Mandarin, Malay?
I'd be amazed if it were Mandarin at that age.
In what language? English, Mandarin, Malay?
I'd be amazed if it were Mandarin at that age.
The people I know who read so early did so in English as far as I can tell.
Anecdotally, I was reading chapter books by age 4 (apparently). My Mom just read a lot to me, hours and hours a day and I listened to audio books with read-a-longs.
My happy, well-adjusted child absolutely could read, count, and do basic forms of math at the age of 4 years old. We were simply there as parents for her to buttress her curiosity and expose her to new concepts.
I recall how a friend of my wife once watched our daughter. We were both so incensed upon our return when we found our daughter glued to the television having watched cartoons like a zombie.
I recall how a friend of my wife once watched our daughter. We were both so incensed upon our return when we found our daughter glued to the television having watched cartoons like a zombie.
All work and no play makes daughter a dull girl.
Don't be such tyrants, let her be a kid and do something different for a change.
Don't be such tyrants, let her be a kid and do something different for a change.
It's not a choice between learning and playing. Play is one of the primary ways young children learn things.
Why would you believe that we raised our daughter as tyrants, never letting her play or do anything different, based upon your reading an Internet message and not asking a single question?
> Yes, I am judging you, because you were incensed because she watched cartoons once.
What a strange reading. We, plural, weren't incensed due to her watching a "cartoon once" but because she had been dumped in front of a television for hours without adult supervision, without interaction with her siblings or friends, without books or going outside, or anything else.
Not everyone views dumping children alone in front of cartoons for hours on end to be a reward.
> Yes, I am judging you, because you were incensed because she watched cartoons once.
What a strange reading. We, plural, weren't incensed due to her watching a "cartoon once" but because she had been dumped in front of a television for hours without adult supervision, without interaction with her siblings or friends, without books or going outside, or anything else.
Not everyone views dumping children alone in front of cartoons for hours on end to be a reward.
> has experts worried about who will be ready for first grade in fall 2021
I.. I just don't understand. Kindergarten is babysitting, you don't need be prepared for 1st grade.
I.. I just don't understand. Kindergarten is babysitting, you don't need be prepared for 1st grade.
That is completely and utterly factually untrue.
It's also tremendously disrespectful to kindergarten teachers who work hard to create an environment where the students learn and develop. It's a harder job than you might think.
You also might be interested it's not just kindergarten that's important, but also pre-K that shows significant and measurable life improvements, hence the current push for universal pre-K.
(Of course I'm referring to in-person kindergarten and pre-K where tons of data exists on this.)
It's also tremendously disrespectful to kindergarten teachers who work hard to create an environment where the students learn and develop. It's a harder job than you might think.
You also might be interested it's not just kindergarten that's important, but also pre-K that shows significant and measurable life improvements, hence the current push for universal pre-K.
(Of course I'm referring to in-person kindergarten and pre-K where tons of data exists on this.)
I'm familiar with the difficulty of 'teaching' kindergarten - giving dozens of children an engaging environment at the same time is extremely difficult, and I have a great deal of respect for kindergarten 'teachers'. My wife is employed in a similar role (in a mixed-age setting).
You're conflating 'enabling development' with teaching. One of those things is important at age 5-6, and the other is not - it's difficult to stop children from learning things at that age. There are not 'skills' that need to be imparted before 1st grade, there are behavioral examples that need to be set in a social context.
> That is completely and utterly factually untrue.
You certainly seem certain.. if you study the topic at a bit more length that will go away.
You're conflating 'enabling development' with teaching. One of those things is important at age 5-6, and the other is not - it's difficult to stop children from learning things at that age. There are not 'skills' that need to be imparted before 1st grade, there are behavioral examples that need to be set in a social context.
> That is completely and utterly factually untrue.
You certainly seem certain.. if you study the topic at a bit more length that will go away.
> if you study the topic at a bit more length that will go away
I have many years of experience both in teaching and in educational policy and technology across K-12 and higher ed. In this particular case, I don't think I need to study it more but thanks. :)
> There are not 'skills' that need to be imparted before 1st grade
Again, that's false. There are absolutely skills and knowledge related to reading and numbers, for instance, that are explicitly taught and practiced and which determine an expected baseline for entering first grade.
I don't know where you'd get the idea that there aren't concrete educational standards for kindergarten.
I have many years of experience both in teaching and in educational policy and technology across K-12 and higher ed. In this particular case, I don't think I need to study it more but thanks. :)
> There are not 'skills' that need to be imparted before 1st grade
Again, that's false. There are absolutely skills and knowledge related to reading and numbers, for instance, that are explicitly taught and practiced and which determine an expected baseline for entering first grade.
I don't know where you'd get the idea that there aren't concrete educational standards for kindergarten.
Are you having a bad day or something?
I learned simple reading, basic math, how to read a clock, and various life and social skills in kindergarten. There's certainly a lot of active teaching going on at the kindergarten level, although I can't speak for all schools.
Without kindergarten, I would've been way behind when I entered first grade. There was a presumption of foundational knowledge on day one there.
Without kindergarten, I would've been way behind when I entered first grade. There was a presumption of foundational knowledge on day one there.
Perhaps you should speak with your wife and her coworkers more. They do in fact teach factual things in kinder. Last month, my kid was learning about black history and discrimination, for example. They also spend a great deal of time actively developing a baseline level of reading skills.
Sure these are things that a kid that goes to the library will probably already have had exposure to, but the thing is that not all kids are at that level.
Sure these are things that a kid that goes to the library will probably already have had exposure to, but the thing is that not all kids are at that level.
This is a relatively recent thing. I didn't learn any of the things that my children had to learn in Kindergarten.
Sure, but that's just as true of most other years of school. The experts don't want to admit that 6th grade is babysitting and they don't want to admit that kindergarten is babysitting either.
Don't preschool and kindergarten teach vital social skills that can affect how you interact with others for the rest of your life?
Only as an intervention—outcomes are similar with or without for healthy families (using income as proxy.)
[deleted]
Yes, this is referred to as Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) and is a major focus of teaching in PreK and kindergarten.
In the absence of basic parenting, yes - that's an important function the setting serves. But it's not 'preparation for 1st grade', it's minimal damage-mitigation.
In the absence of basic parenting? The child is spending like eight hours away from their parents. Of course it's going to have an impact, parenting present or not.
I'm pretty sure the commentator was talking about the other case, social skills can be learned outside of pre-school and kindergarten - when basic parenting skills are applied.
Pretty much, yeah. If those kids that aren't going to kindergarten have exchanged that time for neglect - sitting in front of a television for an eight hour stretch, for example - then they will certainly be worse off for it. But the article didn't demonstrate or investigate that, it went straight from "less enrollment" to "less prepared", as if kindergarten is the only realistic place to learn such important skills as "basic respect" and "don't hit people".
This probably is different in different places, but where I'm from, kids do need some prerequisites for 1st grade - e.g. they should be able to read at least somewhat, know the numbers (incl. written), they have to be able to do basic self-care like dress themselves for outdoors, tie their shoes, other basic things, so it is possible that someone isn't ready for first grade if their parents have neglected that and they didn't have preschool.
> ..., kids do need some prerequisites for 1st grade - e.g. ...tie their shoes
Perhaps, to put on their shoes (confidently tell the left from right shoe), say, by slipping onto already tied ones, or velcro-style shoes.
Would not expect kids to master ties till 6-7 yo.
Besides, the modern laces are so damn slippery and thin that they often require double ties to stay fixed.
Perhaps, to put on their shoes (confidently tell the left from right shoe), say, by slipping onto already tied ones, or velcro-style shoes.
Would not expect kids to master ties till 6-7 yo.
Besides, the modern laces are so damn slippery and thin that they often require double ties to stay fixed.
In the US kids are expected to enter 1st grade with some basic literacy and math skills. If they don't have these at all, they would not necessarily be considered prepared for 1st grade.
Whether this is developmentally or pedagogically appropriate is a different discussion, but's it's the reality in most of the US.
Whether this is developmentally or pedagogically appropriate is a different discussion, but's it's the reality in most of the US.
Not anymore. Kindergarten is now more academically focused to prepare children for 1st grade. This seems to have changed due to No Child Left Behind.
I'm surprised at the push back this has gotten. As the article says, kindergarten isn't mandatory in California. I grew up in California in the 80s and missed half my year of what would have been kindergarten because of a persistent lung infection. It didn't make any difference. I don't have many memories that far back, but all I remember learning to do when I was there was how to spell my name, which I could already do anyway. I'm sure there are some things a teacher can do that a parent can't do, but nothing you learn in kindergarten is among those things.
Kindergarten doesn't need to be a thing. It's convenient for parents and probably not bad for children in ordinary times, but COVID kindergarten is pretty pointless.
Normal Kindergarten is correlated with better academic achievement later.
COVID Kindergarten is worthless.
My youngest is in first grade now, and is about the most eager-to-please and attentive child you'll ever find (haha, not the older two). But when he's been remote it's been only barely viable...
COVID Kindergarten is worthless.
My youngest is in first grade now, and is about the most eager-to-please and attentive child you'll ever find (haha, not the older two). But when he's been remote it's been only barely viable...
> correlated with better academic achievement later
Correlation usually doesn't indicate causation.
Correlation usually doesn't indicate causation.
No. But we do have some evidence of causation-- e.g. children offered Head Start programs do better than children that were not. E.g. Ludwig and Miller (2007) showed a 3% increase in high school graduation rates and a 4% increase in college attendance in disadvantaged youth offered early education. That's a big difference for a treatment 15 years later.
> . . . in disadvantaged youth offered early education.
Head Start was a lot more than just early education. It was social services, nutrition, mental health services, and even the employment of some parents of the Head Start children. I should be clear that I do not mean to claim the total absence of benefits of kindergarten. I was exaggerating. The position I will stake is that I believe the benefits are likely very minor, even outside of COVID, and especially for affluent children.
Head Start was a lot more than just early education. It was social services, nutrition, mental health services, and even the employment of some parents of the Head Start children. I should be clear that I do not mean to claim the total absence of benefits of kindergarten. I was exaggerating. The position I will stake is that I believe the benefits are likely very minor, even outside of COVID, and especially for affluent children.
So, then, your intent in responding to my comment was just to be pedantic and snarky, and not to offer any actual information except to parrot the normal correlation != causation line?
That was a good use of our time.
That was a good use of our time.
Your one observing a correlation between kindergarten and success? No, I think your comment was likely to engender in the typical reader a belief that kindergarten was known to have a significant and positive
causal effect (both statistical and clinical) on outcomes as a general rule. I don't believe this has been established. My intent in responding to your comment was to prevent that belief from wrongly being engendered in the minds of the readers.
Is there a possible confounder that the kids whose parents find out about these offerings and take their kids to them are more attentive overall?
There's always confounders like this.
Well designed studies find ways to exploit the enrollment structures. E.g. you let a randomized group of n kids on the wait list who wouldn't end up with services jump the wait list and compare them to n kids stuck on the wait list. Or you randomize half the kids you help to half-day and the other half to full day.
What you describe shows up in "benefits" of various charter school structures. The charter school kids do better than the kids in comparison schools... but if you compare the charter school kids who won the enrollment lottery to those not offered admission, they usually don't look better.
Well designed studies find ways to exploit the enrollment structures. E.g. you let a randomized group of n kids on the wait list who wouldn't end up with services jump the wait list and compare them to n kids stuck on the wait list. Or you randomize half the kids you help to half-day and the other half to full day.
What you describe shows up in "benefits" of various charter school structures. The charter school kids do better than the kids in comparison schools... but if you compare the charter school kids who won the enrollment lottery to those not offered admission, they usually don't look better.
Sometimes they do, it depends.
> Correlation usually doesn't indicate causation.
I think this is taking "correlation doesn't always prove causation" a few steps too far, right off a cliff. There are difficulties with reasoning from correlation, but saying it "usually doesn't" indicate correlation is too bold, especially in experiments where confounders have been controlled for. [1]
[1] (And don't get me started with the semi-clever types who ask if this or that variable has been controlled for when the study or the article about the study explicitly says it has. Save us all from halfwits trying to teach experienced researchers their business.)
I think this is taking "correlation doesn't always prove causation" a few steps too far, right off a cliff. There are difficulties with reasoning from correlation, but saying it "usually doesn't" indicate correlation is too bold, especially in experiments where confounders have been controlled for. [1]
[1] (And don't get me started with the semi-clever types who ask if this or that variable has been controlled for when the study or the article about the study explicitly says it has. Save us all from halfwits trying to teach experienced researchers their business.)
https://www.gwern.net/Causality provides more empirical background on my view.
mlyle(2)
> [1] (And don't get me started with the semi-clever types who ask if this or that variable has been controlled for when the study or the article about the study explicitly says it has. Save us all from halfwits trying to teach experienced researchers their business.)
This is specifically called "shallow dismissal" in the HN rules (used to be "middle-brow dismissal"). Basically this is when you don't read the article and reply with something that sounds smart and applies in the general situation, but not here because the authors knew that too.
This is specifically called "shallow dismissal" in the HN rules (used to be "middle-brow dismissal"). Basically this is when you don't read the article and reply with something that sounds smart and applies in the general situation, but not here because the authors knew that too.
Normal kindergarten is correlated with achievement because most kids who don't go to kindergarten have higher-poverty low-health home lives.
"Kindergarten" in many cases means something as simple as "human contact instead of bad TV" and "difficult nutrition for the day".
"Kindergarten" in many cases means something as simple as "human contact instead of bad TV" and "difficult nutrition for the day".
> Normal Kindergarten is correlated with better academic achievement later.
I don't plan to "teach" my infant anything till he is 5 or 6. Is this a bad plan?
I don't plan to "teach" my infant anything till he is 5 or 6. Is this a bad plan?
You’re teaching him everyday (kids are naturally inquisitive and mimic), so I assume you mean structured learning. I’d say there’s not necessarily a downside to holding back on structured learning though structure and discipline elsewhere are good.
You'll teach your child things, whether you realize it or not.
You'll teach him to hold your hand when crossing roads, not running out in front of cars. You'll teach him the way you walk to the local shops and back, you'll teach him that kicking you in the crotch is bad, and that he should say "sorry" and not do it again.
You'll probably hang out with neighbours and teach him how to share toys and not fight over them.
All that kind of stuff matters, and is important.
We started taking our child to kindergarden in Finland when he was 1, he'll be going there until he starts proper-school at 7. Mostly they play, draw, listen to stories, sing etc. It's not academic in any sense, but he still learns.
Probably the most important thing he learns is to get dressed and be social with other children of a similar age. He has friends he likes, people he doesn't like, and often these change over a period of weeks/months.
I fully expect he'll be able to read in one/two languages by the time he starts school. We read to him every night, and usually I stop and say the "fox in ?" and point to the word - half the time he'll say the right word, half the time he'll be like "I don't know that word". At first I though he'd memorized the dialog, but when I switch to a new book he's never seen before he still recognizes simple words like "cat", "dog", "hat", "car", etc.
I don't think I'm teaching him to read, we rarely sit down and do anything for more than a few minutes, but he's picked up a lot of things. Like one day he said "That tram is 10", and now he knows about tram-routes within the city "This tram goes to the library", "This tram goes to the swimming pool".
One thing I do when the weather is nice is say "We need to buy cake, where is the cake shop?" He says "go left", "go straight", "go right" and gives directions which we follow. Sometimes he's either confused, or perverse, and sends us in the wrong direction. But that's OK, nice days are worth wasting. But with all that normal stuff we're teaching him stuff, whether it is academic or not.
You'll teach him to hold your hand when crossing roads, not running out in front of cars. You'll teach him the way you walk to the local shops and back, you'll teach him that kicking you in the crotch is bad, and that he should say "sorry" and not do it again.
You'll probably hang out with neighbours and teach him how to share toys and not fight over them.
All that kind of stuff matters, and is important.
We started taking our child to kindergarden in Finland when he was 1, he'll be going there until he starts proper-school at 7. Mostly they play, draw, listen to stories, sing etc. It's not academic in any sense, but he still learns.
Probably the most important thing he learns is to get dressed and be social with other children of a similar age. He has friends he likes, people he doesn't like, and often these change over a period of weeks/months.
I fully expect he'll be able to read in one/two languages by the time he starts school. We read to him every night, and usually I stop and say the "fox in ?" and point to the word - half the time he'll say the right word, half the time he'll be like "I don't know that word". At first I though he'd memorized the dialog, but when I switch to a new book he's never seen before he still recognizes simple words like "cat", "dog", "hat", "car", etc.
I don't think I'm teaching him to read, we rarely sit down and do anything for more than a few minutes, but he's picked up a lot of things. Like one day he said "That tram is 10", and now he knows about tram-routes within the city "This tram goes to the library", "This tram goes to the swimming pool".
One thing I do when the weather is nice is say "We need to buy cake, where is the cake shop?" He says "go left", "go straight", "go right" and gives directions which we follow. Sometimes he's either confused, or perverse, and sends us in the wrong direction. But that's OK, nice days are worth wasting. But with all that normal stuff we're teaching him stuff, whether it is academic or not.
> The study done by Harvard economist, Raj Chetty, and his colleagues suggests that because students who learn more in kindergarten can expect to see their earnings increase significantly, an excellent kindergarten teacher could be worth as much as $320,000 a year.
from: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/07/28/128819707/the-...
from: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/07/28/128819707/the-...
Thanks! I’d not heard of criticisms of his work but will look into it. Regardless, I agree with the bottom-line conclusion that his work won’t go away because it fits a narrative that many people would like to believe/advance.
> Ninety minutes later, kindergarten was over for Annika. For good ... Today Annika attends the Little Mud Puddles Learning Center, a private preschool, with her 3-year-old brother.
I don't understand - isn't her private preschool just another form of kindergarten? What's the difference?
I don't understand - isn't her private preschool just another form of kindergarten? What's the difference?
It's worded confusingly, but I think the point was "public kindergarten" = "focus on meeting standards via remote school" while "private preschool" = "social time."
In the US, kindergartens are typically much more academic than elsewhere (while preschools generally have no academic curriculum).
In the US, kindergartens are typically much more academic than elsewhere (while preschools generally have no academic curriculum).
The difference is, given the choice between a daycare center with a little academics / "private preschool"... or having your kids watch distanced public Kindergarten offerings... the former may be academically better.
I got that, but I mean I don't understand the terminology 'done with kindergarten' and 'where are all the kindergarteners' - isn't the pre-school also a kindergarten? They aren't done with it and they haven't gone anywhere - they're just at a different kind of kindergarten.
I think the idea is, that when the only public offerings are remote... there won't be any public kindergartners anymore. They'll end up in other offerings-- learning from their parents, in daycare centers, private preschools, or... just plopped in front of a TV or iPad.
Because expecting your kid to be in an educational videoconference at age 5 is a nonstarter.
Because expecting your kid to be in an educational videoconference at age 5 is a nonstarter.
Kindergarten is, first and foremost, free daycare; a place to warehouse children so their mothers can work, without paying for childcare.
When I was five, we still had half-day kindergarten, and that was more than enough for the very modest and realistic scholastic expectations. Those consisted of learning the letters, doing circle time to go over the weather and the days of the week and count how many days of school we'd endured, and a healthy charge of playing with blocks.
Public schools have to deal with both precocious children and those who are essentially feral, and this problem seems to be getting worse as the atomization of society progresses.
When I was five, we still had half-day kindergarten, and that was more than enough for the very modest and realistic scholastic expectations. Those consisted of learning the letters, doing circle time to go over the weather and the days of the week and count how many days of school we'd endured, and a healthy charge of playing with blocks.
Public schools have to deal with both precocious children and those who are essentially feral, and this problem seems to be getting worse as the atomization of society progresses.
Many families look at the numbers and decide that it makes more sense to have one parent stay home than pay $1400 per kid per month.
$1400 is the cost to put kids in alternative private programs (daycare/preschool). Keeping kids in (public) kindergarten is "free". I put that in quotes because pandemic kindergarten requires significantly more parent involvement. $1400 a month could look like a bargain compared to losing a full-time salary or could look like too high a cost to justify having both parents work. In dual parent hetero relationships, it's usually the mom that drops out of the workplace
Just to put things into perspective, in Sydney Australia a typical, inner city early learning centre costs $160/day, so $3200 per month.
There are means tested rebates available but they cap out both in total per year and per day.
Doesn’t a parent have to stay home with the kid anyway since everything’s remote?
I suspect that depends where you are - here in Finland schools closed, but daycare stayed upon (1-6 years old).
It was strongly encouraged that you keep your child home, but if your parents were doctors/similar there was no qualms about the kids going to daycare. Ours certainly went for the duration.
We pay €250/month for that, which is very cheap.
It was strongly encouraged that you keep your child home, but if your parents were doctors/similar there was no qualms about the kids going to daycare. Ours certainly went for the duration.
We pay €250/month for that, which is very cheap.
5 years old not knowing all the letters or not knowing how to read does not strikes me as odd or catastrophic. That is what first grade is for.
But it gives me some idea about why the amount of parents who think starting school a year later might be good idea for their kids.
But it gives me some idea about why the amount of parents who think starting school a year later might be good idea for their kids.
It’s been a few years, but I’m pretty sure both our kids could read multi-syllable words entering first grade and had spent a lot of the summer reading on their own.
It seems like that one year difference will get kids tracked with “the smart kids” and that gap will likely widen rather than narrow over the years.
It’s not catastrophic, but it does seem like it’s at least relevant, and possibly important.
It seems like that one year difference will get kids tracked with “the smart kids” and that gap will likely widen rather than narrow over the years.
It’s not catastrophic, but it does seem like it’s at least relevant, and possibly important.
We should treat the tracking and gap as a problem and fix it.
Not by holding anyone back mind you, but by making sure every kid has the opportunity to make the most of the huge amount of time they spend in school.
Not by holding anyone back mind you, but by making sure every kid has the opportunity to make the most of the huge amount of time they spend in school.
One of my kids was reading 500 page novels (not difficuly ones, but, like, later Harry Potter books) before 2nd grade. Another will be lucky to do that by 4th grade (which would still be “early”). The kids track themselves and there’s little school can do to speed them up. They can sure slow them down, though—our earlier reader regressed for most of kindergarten.
Some kids are going to learn faster than others. The only way to eliminate the gap is to hold them back.
I didn't say we should eliminate it, I said we should treat it as a problem.
If it comes down to learning speed, great, not a big problem, if a 9th grader is behind because of how K-6 is structured, fix that.
If it comes down to learning speed, great, not a big problem, if a 9th grader is behind because of how K-6 is structured, fix that.
> I said we should treat it as a problem.
It's better to just accept that kids are different. It's not a problem that some kids run faster than others. It's not a problem that some kids are interested in art and others are interested in cars.
I like programming. Others detest it, but like cooking. Viva la difference.
It's better to just accept that kids are different. It's not a problem that some kids run faster than others. It's not a problem that some kids are interested in art and others are interested in cars.
I like programming. Others detest it, but like cooking. Viva la difference.
I mean, while running definitely have genetic component, right kind of training makes massive difference. In world where running would matter, I woud expect the adults to try to figure out when and how train them.
Same for art actually. If art mattered more, we would cared about making kids like it and teaching all kids to draw.
Same for art actually. If art mattered more, we would cared about making kids like it and teaching all kids to draw.
Of course training makes a difference. But if you don't win the genetic lottery, you're never going to be in the 1% that are good enough to make a living at it. Not a chance.
Me, my coordination is poor. It takes a lot of training for me to even get to the point where most people start. But it doesn't matter to me, as I'm good at things other people are bad at, and fortunately I enjoy doing those things and people pay me to do it.
Nobody would pay me for my athletic ineptitude, my musical disability, or my artistic malfunction. And so what. Viva la difference.
Me, my coordination is poor. It takes a lot of training for me to even get to the point where most people start. But it doesn't matter to me, as I'm good at things other people are bad at, and fortunately I enjoy doing those things and people pay me to do it.
Nobody would pay me for my athletic ineptitude, my musical disability, or my artistic malfunction. And so what. Viva la difference.
You aren't reading for my meaning.
The comment I replied to was speaking about 1st grade placement having trajectory. My point is that this being true is a failure of the educational system. Each kid should get their best outcome regardless of whether they enter 1st grade on that track or not.
The comment I replied to was speaking about 1st grade placement having trajectory. My point is that this being true is a failure of the educational system. Each kid should get their best outcome regardless of whether they enter 1st grade on that track or not.
> Each kid should get their best outcome regardless of whether they enter 1st grade on that track or not.
I can agree with that as a goal. Their best outcome is going to be different from everyone else's.
I can agree with that as a goal. Their best outcome is going to be different from everyone else's.
Elsewhere you say that kids don't need to learn those things until age 6, so parents don't need to worry about prioritizing it.
Here, the concern is that if the kids learn them around age 6, their trajectory could be permanently altered-- never having a chance to catch up even if capable-- because of the system's tracking of learners.
Here, the concern is that if the kids learn them around age 6, their trajectory could be permanently altered-- never having a chance to catch up even if capable-- because of the system's tracking of learners.
> their trajectory could be permanently altered
I simply don't buy that.
The reason is simple - elementary school teaches kids at such a glacial pace there is no problem for kids catching up who started a bit late.
For example, I missed the first half of 4th grade. The teacher proposed that I be held back a grade because of all that I missed. My mom put her foot down and said no way. The teacher was skeptical, but within a few days it was abundantly clear that I hadn't missed anything at all. The 4th grade class simply had not perceptibly advanced in 3 months.
P.S. when going through my dad's papers after he passed a few years ago, I ran across report cards from before first grade. They all thought I was "slow". People should just lighten up about academic performance before age 6. It doesn't mean anything for the vast majority of kids. I wouldn't even worry about it until 3rd grade.
I simply don't buy that.
The reason is simple - elementary school teaches kids at such a glacial pace there is no problem for kids catching up who started a bit late.
For example, I missed the first half of 4th grade. The teacher proposed that I be held back a grade because of all that I missed. My mom put her foot down and said no way. The teacher was skeptical, but within a few days it was abundantly clear that I hadn't missed anything at all. The 4th grade class simply had not perceptibly advanced in 3 months.
P.S. when going through my dad's papers after he passed a few years ago, I ran across report cards from before first grade. They all thought I was "slow". People should just lighten up about academic performance before age 6. It doesn't mean anything for the vast majority of kids. I wouldn't even worry about it until 3rd grade.
OK, so say that in the argument above, because I think you were misunderstanding the other party.
I think it varies a lot by school system. There are places-- mostly lower income, disadvantaged places-- where joining a higher track again is very hard.
> The teacher proposed that I be held back a grade because of all that I missed. My mom put her foot down and said no way.
This kind of advocacy is often missing, too.
> The 4th grade class simply had not perceptibly advanced in 3 months.
Good curriculum has looping, where you hit the same kind of topic from different angles separated in time. I'm teaching bright kids in middle school, and I'm finding that you need to hit something about 3 times before even the bright kids will retain and be able to minimally apply it. (With the exception that every now and then something will be interesting enough that a few students will go and figure out everything about it on their own).
Looping means that if kids miss a bit it'll generally be OK (there won't be huge perceptible gaps in knowledge/ability).
I think it varies a lot by school system. There are places-- mostly lower income, disadvantaged places-- where joining a higher track again is very hard.
> The teacher proposed that I be held back a grade because of all that I missed. My mom put her foot down and said no way.
This kind of advocacy is often missing, too.
> The 4th grade class simply had not perceptibly advanced in 3 months.
Good curriculum has looping, where you hit the same kind of topic from different angles separated in time. I'm teaching bright kids in middle school, and I'm finding that you need to hit something about 3 times before even the bright kids will retain and be able to minimally apply it. (With the exception that every now and then something will be interesting enough that a few students will go and figure out everything about it on their own).
Looping means that if kids miss a bit it'll generally be OK (there won't be huge perceptible gaps in knowledge/ability).
I attended 3 different elementary schools, all over the place. All the same. They were still looping back teaching the times tables in 7th grade.
Indeed. My 4th grader is in remote public schooling this year. He crushes the day's work in 30-45 minutes; if anything it's highlighting just how terribly inefficient the scholastics part of elementary school is. (It's also not the primary purpose of K-5, but to the extent that a sliver of it is present, it is indeed glacially slow.)
Elementary school is pretty much 95% playtime. I had a good time playing with my friends at school.
College was a total shock, I had to work hard.
College was a total shock, I had to work hard.
I think it works similarly as kids who get tracked early into art, music, or a particular sport. The more they do it, the better they get, and the better they get, the more they do it. Then, in addition to the personal satisfaction, they get praise from people they care about, so they continue. Then their closest school friends are all in the earlier-achieving cohort, may have parents with similar feelings about education, etc.
It's not like the schools are saying "you stumbled over your th-words when entering first grade, so no AP English for you 11 years later", but rather that small differences within the kids themselves becoming self-reinforcing. As WB says in a sibling thread, the only way to break the cycle is to slow these kids down, which is antithetical to me (and hopefully everyone who cares about the kids).
It's not like the schools are saying "you stumbled over your th-words when entering first grade, so no AP English for you 11 years later", but rather that small differences within the kids themselves becoming self-reinforcing. As WB says in a sibling thread, the only way to break the cycle is to slow these kids down, which is antithetical to me (and hopefully everyone who cares about the kids).
I don't accept it as a given that the only way to address tracking is to slow some kids down.
Like what if we tripled the number of teachers?
Like what if we tripled the number of teachers?
I don't think school funding is a significant driver of this. If a group of kids (in loose alliance with their parents) are more focused early on scholastic achievement, those kids will tend to continue to focus more on it (and believe they’re good at it) whether you have 30:2 or 30:6 student:teacher ratios. There's a lot more influence on students and their outcomes coming from outside of school employees than inside it.
The kids are self-tracking at least as much as the school is formalizing it. You could have pretended there wasn’t an advanced math group, just like you can not officially keep score in soccer. The kids still know.
The kids are self-tracking at least as much as the school is formalizing it. You could have pretended there wasn’t an advanced math group, just like you can not officially keep score in soccer. The kids still know.
If you don't have low ratios and tracking, you end up targeting the 33rd percentile and seeing:
* Where the lower-third of the class gets with instruction with slightly too difficult material and not quite enough coaching.
* Where the middle-third gets with excessive coaching on slightly too easy material.
* Where the upper-third gets on their own with little help, occasionally bored by and impeded by the path of the overall class.
This is somewhere affluence matters-- if you have parent volunteers showing up and hanging out to intensively coach (under the teacher's direction) the lowest readers and to challenge / help higher readers pick out books... it makes a big difference on how well class time is used. The teacher can aim square for the middle. And the stronger kids get some enrichment and opportunity for further growth.
Why the 33rd percentile? Because a classroom with 1/6th of kids not getting it at all and 1/6th kind-of getting it.. is infinitely more workable than a classroom with 1/4th not getting it at all and 1/4th kind-of getting it.
* Where the lower-third of the class gets with instruction with slightly too difficult material and not quite enough coaching.
* Where the middle-third gets with excessive coaching on slightly too easy material.
* Where the upper-third gets on their own with little help, occasionally bored by and impeded by the path of the overall class.
This is somewhere affluence matters-- if you have parent volunteers showing up and hanging out to intensively coach (under the teacher's direction) the lowest readers and to challenge / help higher readers pick out books... it makes a big difference on how well class time is used. The teacher can aim square for the middle. And the stronger kids get some enrichment and opportunity for further growth.
Why the 33rd percentile? Because a classroom with 1/6th of kids not getting it at all and 1/6th kind-of getting it.. is infinitely more workable than a classroom with 1/4th not getting it at all and 1/4th kind-of getting it.
I agree that involved parents is a massive lever on achievement.
I suspect there’s 100x more parental involvement and targeted enrichment activities outside of school than inside of school.
I suspect there’s 100x more parental involvement and targeted enrichment activities outside of school than inside of school.
Most parents just let their kids crank on whatever academics are, and maybe help with a difficult assignment or two... even in affluent schools with involved parents.
But having a couple parents show up to reading time and teachers' aides... makes such a big difference in K-1.
But having a couple parents show up to reading time and teachers' aides... makes such a big difference in K-1.
[deleted]
Yes, keep separating the kids, cordon off the troubled ones to shitty public schools, and ignore fixing the real issues: their parents and home life. Raise everyone in their own classful bubble to keep perpetuating status quo.
> On the plus side, I take solace knowing the majority of those gifted students became addicts or suffered severe mental health issues when they realized they weren't that smart, and the rest of the world doesn't think they're special.
That does not actually happen to that often in tracked school systems. Seriously.
That does not actually happen to that often in tracked school systems. Seriously.
[deleted]
Wow.
Overall, being tracked higher is correlated with better life outcomes and higher life satisfaction. So I don't think the "majority" ends up the way you state.
Overall, being tracked higher is correlated with better life outcomes and higher life satisfaction. So I don't think the "majority" ends up the way you state.
My kids did not. Nor did most of their classmates. Had that be expectation, I would be much more likely to let them wait one year over pushing early reading. Or would not harm them, but would make everything easier.
I don't know, imo people who worry about whether kids are tracked smart are more likely to push them to learn everything too soon.
But the actual big issue with kids that go to school sooner then ready is not that they don't look smartest. It is that they look troublemakers due to being unable to focus as long as needed, they play instead of paying attention, get into trouble as a result. It does even out after some years, but still implies very crappy years for both kid and parents. Ability to stay on task makes massive difference in how long and stressful homework is.
I don't know, imo people who worry about whether kids are tracked smart are more likely to push them to learn everything too soon.
But the actual big issue with kids that go to school sooner then ready is not that they don't look smartest. It is that they look troublemakers due to being unable to focus as long as needed, they play instead of paying attention, get into trouble as a result. It does even out after some years, but still implies very crappy years for both kid and parents. Ability to stay on task makes massive difference in how long and stressful homework is.
[deleted]
I think there is a little confusion of what kindergarteners learn. Here's some lessons from the Florida Virtual Classroom which is heavily used throughout the US since most school districts didn't have a virtual learning plan for kindergarten.
Math: https://www.myflvs.net/course-previews/elementary/Math_Grade...
English: https://www.myflvs.net/course-previews/elementary/Language_A...
Math: https://www.myflvs.net/course-previews/elementary/Math_Grade...
English: https://www.myflvs.net/course-previews/elementary/Language_A...
Note that where we live, kindergartners are aged 5-6, and 1st graders are aged 6-7.
Kids are also memorization machines. Letters are pure memorization. But kids also forget things fast. Our oldest learned the letters by 2, forgot them, then re-learned them at 4.
That said, everyone develops in different areas at different rates. I definitely think parents tend to push their kids more than they need to. Lots of this stuff is just when the kid is physiologically ready to do it. Pushing them when they aren't ready just adds pointless stress.
Kids are also memorization machines. Letters are pure memorization. But kids also forget things fast. Our oldest learned the letters by 2, forgot them, then re-learned them at 4.
That said, everyone develops in different areas at different rates. I definitely think parents tend to push their kids more than they need to. Lots of this stuff is just when the kid is physiologically ready to do it. Pushing them when they aren't ready just adds pointless stress.
My mother taught me to read when I was four (just over sixty years ago). I'm sure it gave me a head start even though it made the first year of infant school (5 to 7) occasionally irritating as I was asked to read what I regarded as babyish texts! Whether it would help all others I don't know but I imagine that it would hardly hinder anyone.
Similar situation, however i think it was quite damaging to my development that i wasn’t surrounded by children or similar levels of learning / development at that stage. I was the only one in my class able to read and essentially had to go amuse myself while everybody else was learning their letters.
To be clear I am glad I was taught to read but regret nobody else was.
To be clear I am glad I was taught to read but regret nobody else was.
A question is whether this sort of thing is cumulative or even compounding, or whether later environmental effects can balance it out.
If I recall correctly, studies of head start programs have shown that the effects are significant at first but tend to fade over time?
If I recall correctly, studies of head start programs have shown that the effects are significant at first but tend to fade over time?
Those studies were on disadvantaged kids. Which already makes them possibly irrelevant to HN crowd kids.
If you take disadvataged kid and give him good kidergarten, first years in school are easier. 8 years later, those kids are basically product of their elementary school. You can't conclude anything else.
You cant conclude what will happen if all the kids are less prepared, or what would happen with kids who have great support whole time.
If you take disadvataged kid and give him good kidergarten, first years in school are easier. 8 years later, those kids are basically product of their elementary school. You can't conclude anything else.
You cant conclude what will happen if all the kids are less prepared, or what would happen with kids who have great support whole time.
They fade, but there's still a few percent difference in high school graduation rates, measures of emotional control in early adulthood, and college attendance.
(Larger than this in some cohorts, e.g. when the mother's education level is very low).
(Larger than this in some cohorts, e.g. when the mother's education level is very low).
Not a specialist, but I'd bet that not knowing letters and numbers is the least problematic part of the pandemic-led arrested development.
I pay to send my kid to a montessori school. The class has been in person unlike the local public school.
In my opinion, if they really cared about kids that were less well off, they would provide them with credits or vouchers to let parents decide what is best for their kids.
In my opinion, if they really cared about kids that were less well off, they would provide them with credits or vouchers to let parents decide what is best for their kids.
Or simply re-open the public schools.
[deleted]
Private schools have more money, and so are more able to use that money to comply with safety requirements.
This is not generally true.
> they would provide them with credits or vouchers to let parents decide what is best for their kids.
This sounds like the exact problem I would hope to avoid. Further incentivizing those who can pay out-of-pocket for their children's schooling would presumably create an even more lopsided public schooling system for those who cannot afford any additional expenditure. It may also decrease incentives to improve public schools in those areas. In the US, there are public school districts that can compete in quality with the most desirable private schools, so it's reasonable to assume that there's room for improvement elsewhere.
Also, your comment makes an assumption that caring about kids means allowing parents to decide what is best for their kids. I'm sure this can be true, but it seems unfounded in something as abstract as schooling methodology.
This sounds like the exact problem I would hope to avoid. Further incentivizing those who can pay out-of-pocket for their children's schooling would presumably create an even more lopsided public schooling system for those who cannot afford any additional expenditure. It may also decrease incentives to improve public schools in those areas. In the US, there are public school districts that can compete in quality with the most desirable private schools, so it's reasonable to assume that there's room for improvement elsewhere.
Also, your comment makes an assumption that caring about kids means allowing parents to decide what is best for their kids. I'm sure this can be true, but it seems unfounded in something as abstract as schooling methodology.
Vouchers don't solve the problem, they move it around. Take the kids in the "worst" school in your city and swap them with the school in the "best". Do you honestly think the outcomes would be dramatically different?
Poverty is the main driver here. Not some "school choice" nonsense.
Poverty is the main driver here. Not some "school choice" nonsense.
Are significant fractions of the country still fully remote? Even after the vaccine has been widely distributed to almost any vulnerable person who wants it?
In Florida, we've been in-person for any parent who wants it since the beginning of the school year. By now, 90% of families have opted back in to full-time in-school. I assume that preferences from around the country must be similar. I don't see how voters and taxpayers in full-remote areas aren't in outright revolt. I can't imagine being a state or local politician and trying to run for re-election on that platform.
In Florida, we've been in-person for any parent who wants it since the beginning of the school year. By now, 90% of families have opted back in to full-time in-school. I assume that preferences from around the country must be similar. I don't see how voters and taxpayers in full-remote areas aren't in outright revolt. I can't imagine being a state or local politician and trying to run for re-election on that platform.
As far as I can tell California is slowly coming back on to classroom schooling. I've heard mixed messages depending on the district. My kids play travel ball so my Facebook feed is full of people all over the north part of the state and their experiences. All hearsay of course, in the grand scheme of things.
One parent was complaining that the return to school in their district was doing zoom meetings from a classrom instead of at home.
Me? I left CA when I saw the writing on the wall back in May. My kids have been doing in person school for the entire 2020-2021 school year.
One parent was complaining that the return to school in their district was doing zoom meetings from a classrom instead of at home.
Me? I left CA when I saw the writing on the wall back in May. My kids have been doing in person school for the entire 2020-2021 school year.
We decided our kid (CA) is doing remote school for as long as they are offering it. It’s mostly useless for her age (8) but it’s far better than sending her to a COVID pitri dish and bringing it home. I was stunned at the number of kids opted back in to in person school. All this risk for two more months or so. We are going to see another wave as people once again pretend the pandemic doesn’t exist.
What could have happened if they just locked down senior homes instead of locking up the entire world ? The mental impact of these lockdowns have devastated children k-12 in developed countries and the livelihoods in poor countries which cannot afford printing fiat money.
https://www.heritage.org/data-visualizations/public-health/c...
https://www.heritage.org/data-visualizations/public-health/c...
> Where have all the kindergartners gone?
tldr: they moved to Israel, because there's no virus no more
tldr: they moved to Israel, because there's no virus no more
Anecdotally, I went to kindergarten and I don’t think it really had much of an impact on me, and I definitely don’t think it would work remotely.
Most of what I did there were hands on activities (arts and crafts, stuff with play dough, explorations into non Newtonian fluids) and socialising. Oh I talked to a police officer for the first, and so far only time.
I wasn’t doing much academic learning, which is a the part of school that translates to online the best.
Not to mention I simply wouldn’t have been able to focus on a teacher on a screen, although I suppose that part is changing as children’s relationships with technology advance.
Most of what I did there were hands on activities (arts and crafts, stuff with play dough, explorations into non Newtonian fluids) and socialising. Oh I talked to a police officer for the first, and so far only time.
I wasn’t doing much academic learning, which is a the part of school that translates to online the best.
Not to mention I simply wouldn’t have been able to focus on a teacher on a screen, although I suppose that part is changing as children’s relationships with technology advance.
I doubt any person can say with any credibility whether kindergarten had an impact on them. It’s like asking if breastfeeding had an impact on a person — they simply wouldn’t know.
Zoom bores my daughter. She doodles through class. The classes are deliberately short (30 min sessions) because good luck keeping two dozen kids engaged for longer through zoom. As the article mentioned, the social aspect is definitely missing. My 3rd grader gets a bit of it through breakout rooms with a couple classmates, but kindergarteners are too young for that, so most of classes is just sitting waiting for your turn to blurt out 3 words.
Academically, I'll be honest, school is a lowest common denominator. School is going over spelling sight words and counting to 100. My daughter has early 2nd grader reading skills and knows multiplication from playing games.
The same iPad that sucks so badly for zoom sessions is also a portal to the largest educational resource in the world. At this day and age of data abundance, academic success is what you make of it.
The social aspect is still largely missing, but since we're all stuck at home, my kids get to spend a great deal of time together. This means they fight a lot, but I suppose learning to handle conflict is also part of developing social skills, so </shrug>