If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
entering kindergarten early
In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote: Herman Rubin wrote: There is NO good GT program which will not have a student doing mainly "honors" college courses in their early teens. I rather imagine that a good GT program will have kids doing whatever their ability and motivation gives them the ability to do at any particular age. I don't notice that the kids in the GT program here seem frustrated at not going fast enough. They seem plenty occupied to me. You can occupy by busy work, including meaningless "projects". And for motivation, for much the motivation comes from understanding of the concepts, not learning the facts are repeating the tortuous paths our predecessors had to take to get at the concepts. It was not until the late 19th century that the integers were put on a sound axiomatic basis, and this can be taught to children who do not even know how to do arithmetic. It all starts with counting, and not in counting in base 10. They can learn that much, and do it with less effort than it takes to do the dumbed down busy work given by the schools, and spending time on learning poorly designed "fun things" which will have to be RElearned later properly. My children have yet to learn anything that needs to be unlearned. And while I think they sometimes have too much work, they do not have "busywork." All of arithmetic practice after the ideas are learned is busy work. See above for learning the foundations; Euclid would have jumped with joy if someone gave them to him. Your children probably have learned little structural or foundational material, if any; very little is presented before high school, and not much even then. One needs mathematics, not arithmetic, to understand physics and chemistry, and now biology. Much involves probability, and while probability evolved from games of chance, that is a poor way of approaching understanding the concepts. Calculating combinatorics does not make it any easier to understand. Best wishes, Ericka -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
entering kindergarten early
In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote: Herman Rubin wrote: As far as the structure of words and spelling, that may well be good; this, and other aspects of grammar, seem to have disappeared from grammar school. My goodness, you have a lot of broad statements to make about education. Spelling and grammar certainly have not been absent for my children in elementary school. We live in a country were there is a huge amount of variation from state to state, and even school district to school district. Broad pronouncements about educational practices are difficult to make with any accuracy. There are some broad trends, but there are exceptions even to those. I do not say that all schools are bad, but all seem to be opposed to teaching to a fixed subject matter, with children proceding at their individual rates. I also know something about the quality of those going into the teaching of mathematics, which is basic for all sciences, and is now even getting into history and literature. I have seen the decline in entering students, and the college courses have been reduced by the political pressures. I have seen large numbers of graduate students who can no longer understand what those getting degrees in the 50s and 60s had as requirements. There have been some improvements, but teaching of reading is not back to the level of 80 years ago. From the late 30s to the 50s, the whole word method was exclusively used for teaching reading, and the results were as expected by all but the educationists. The production of books so that essentially all parents could teach their children to read using phonics has largely, but not completely, eliminated that atrocity. The educationists believe that someone who knows "how to teach" can essentially teach any subject. I would say that they know how to teach memorization and routine, and that this precludes understanding except by geniuses, and even then only with difficulty. I have been through this myself, and I am regarded as being quite good in separating concepts from manipulation. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
entering kindergarten early
On May 26, 7:55 pm, (Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer wrote: Herman Rubin wrote: As far as the structure of words and spelling, that may well be good; this, and other aspects of grammar, seem to have disappeared from grammar school. My goodness, you have a lot of broad statements to make about education. Spelling and grammar certainly have not been absent for my children in elementary school. We live in a country were there is a huge amount of variation from state to state, and even school district to school district. Broad pronouncements about educational practices are difficult to make with any accuracy. There are some broad trends, but there are exceptions even to those. I do not say that all schools are bad, but all seem to be opposed to teaching to a fixed subject matter, with children proceding at their individual rates. I also know something about the quality of those going into the teaching of mathematics, which is basic for all sciences, and is now even getting into history and literature. I have seen the decline in entering students, and the college courses have been reduced by the political pressures. I have seen large numbers of graduate students who can no longer understand what those getting degrees in the 50s and 60s had as requirements. There have been some improvements, but teaching of reading is not back to the level of 80 years ago. From the late 30s to the 50s, the whole word method was exclusively used for teaching reading, and the results were as expected by all but the educationists. The production of books so that essentially all parents could teach their children to read using phonics has largely, but not completely, eliminated that atrocity. Here, you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge, which leads me to question everything that you have to say about this topic. The whole word approach to teaching reading did not become in vogue until the 1960s, and didn't become the primary method of teaching kids to read until the 1980s or 90s. By the latter date, it was under attack, and remains so to this day. The US has a 99.9% literacy rate as of 2005. According to the National Institute for Literacy: *The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study assessed children's reading skills as they entered kindergarten in the fall of 1998, kindergarten in the spring of 1999, and first grade in spring 2000. They found that at the start of kindergarten in the fall: *67% had letter recognition skills; this increased to 95% of children in the spring of their kindergarten year, and 100% by the spring of their first grade year, 31% could understand the letter-sound relationship at the beginning of words, this increased to 74% of children in the spring of their kindergarten year, and 98% by the spring of their first grade year, 18% could understand the letter-sound relationship at the end of words; this increased to 54% of children in the spring of their kindergarten year, and 94% by the spring of their first grade year, 3% had sight-word recognition skills; this increased to 14% of children in the spring of their kindergarten year, and 83% by the spring of their first grade year, and 1% could understand words in context; this increased to 4% of children in the spring of their kindergarten year, and 48% by the spring of their first grade year.* Do you really believe that it was anything CLOSE to that in the 1920s? What percentage of the population do you think attended school beyond the primary grades at that time? Anecdotally, my grandmother's siblings demanded that she leave school in 10th grade in the early 20s, telling her that she was far too old to be in school, and should clearly be out helping to support her family. The educationists believe that someone who knows "how to teach" can essentially teach any subject. I would say that they know how to teach memorization and routine, and that this precludes understanding except by geniuses, and even then only with difficulty. I have been through this myself, and I am regarded as being quite good in separating concepts from manipulation. Regarding as such by whom? Perhaps not those of us who have seen you parrot this disinformation time and time again. Are you aware of the NCLB standards regarding *highly qualified teachers*? Are you aware of the requirement that teachers be able to pass certification examinations in each subject which they teach? How does that jive with your allegations? More importantly, the methodology that you recommend has been adopted by an increasing number of school districts over the past 15 years. Most parents and educators derisively call it *fuzy math* It emphasizes process, and eliminates rote learning. It has resulted in a generation of children who are math-illiterate. As early as 1999, a group of 200 individuals, mostly professional mathematicians but including other noteworthy people in education and scientific fields, noted their opposition to these very programs that you endorse. Barbara |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
entering kindergarten early
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer wrote: My children have yet to learn anything that needs to be unlearned. And while I think they sometimes have too much work, they do not have "busywork." All of arithmetic practice after the ideas are learned is busy work. See above for learning the foundations; Euclid would have jumped with joy if someone gave them to him. Your children probably have learned little structural or foundational material, if any; very little is presented before high school, and not much even then. I'm pretty clear on what constitutes "busywork," thanks. I don't note that they're doing much of it. And frankly, their math homework is not graded. They do what they need to do to master the material. Best wishes, Ericka |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
entering kindergarten early
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer wrote: Herman Rubin wrote: As far as the structure of words and spelling, that may well be good; this, and other aspects of grammar, seem to have disappeared from grammar school. My goodness, you have a lot of broad statements to make about education. Spelling and grammar certainly have not been absent for my children in elementary school. We live in a country were there is a huge amount of variation from state to state, and even school district to school district. Broad pronouncements about educational practices are difficult to make with any accuracy. There are some broad trends, but there are exceptions even to those. I do not say that all schools are bad, but all seem to be opposed to teaching to a fixed subject matter, with children proceding at their individual rates. Certainly there are some constraints, in that they are expected to demonstrate mastery of the curriculum at various points, and sometimes the way they assess that is lame. I wouldn't say that my children have infinite flexibility in the rate at which they learn things, but there are a wide range of levels available to them. There are multiple levels within their own program, and if they are ahead or behind that range in a particular subject, they can go in or out of the GT program and up or down a grade or two to work at the level that suits them best. In some cases, kids work out independent study arrangements. I also know something about the quality of those going into the teaching of mathematics, which is basic for all sciences, and is now even getting into history and literature. I have seen the decline in entering students, and the college courses have been reduced by the political pressures. I have seen large numbers of graduate students who can no longer understand what those getting degrees in the 50s and 60s had as requirements. Both my kids currently in elementary school are on track to graduate high school having done more math than I did, and I came into college with some college level math completed and did well with the math I took in college. They don't really seem to be in any danger of having an inadequate understanding of math to me. Is this true of every school or every student? Of course not. But neither is it true that all schools or all students aren't getting a respectable education in math. There have been some improvements, but teaching of reading is not back to the level of 80 years ago. From the late 30s to the 50s, the whole word method was exclusively used for teaching reading, and the results were as expected by all but the educationists. The production of books so that essentially all parents could teach their children to read using phonics has largely, but not completely, eliminated that atrocity. I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say here. While there are schools and students who are not doing well with reading, there are also schools and students who are being very successful. The educationists believe that someone who knows "how to teach" can essentially teach any subject. They do? Odd, then, that they seem to make an effort to hire teachers with some background in the subject they're teaching around here. I would say that they know how to teach memorization and routine, and that this precludes understanding except by geniuses, and even then only with difficulty. I have been through this myself, and I am regarded as being quite good in separating concepts from manipulation. So far, it seems like my children have a pretty good understanding of what they're learning in school. At least, they seem to be able to apply the knowledge to real world issues when they get home, which seems to be a reasonable way to assess understanding in my book. Now, we're blessed with a pretty good school system here. It's not perfect, but all things considered, it generally gets the job done competently. I certainly understand that not all schools or school systems are like that. My point is merely that there's a lot of variation in how schools are run and how successful they are, so it's rather difficult to make broad generalizations about how things are in public education. Best wishes, Ericka |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
entering kindergarten early
Barbara wrote:
On May 26, 7:55 pm, (Herman Rubin) wrote: In article , Ericka Kammerer wrote: Herman Rubin wrote: As far as the structure of words and spelling, that may well be good; this, and other aspects of grammar, seem to have disappeared from grammar school. My goodness, you have a lot of broad statements to make about education. Spelling and grammar certainly have not been absent for my children in elementary school. We live in a country were there is a huge amount of variation from state to state, and even school district to school district. Broad pronouncements about educational practices are difficult to make with any accuracy. There are some broad trends, but there are exceptions even to those. I do not say that all schools are bad, but all seem to be opposed to teaching to a fixed subject matter, with children proceding at their individual rates. That's not completely the teacher's fault - it is mandated from above. I also know something about the quality of those going into the teaching of mathematics, which is basic for all sciences, and is now even getting into history and literature. I have seen the decline in entering students, and the college courses have been reduced by the political pressures. I have seen large numbers of graduate students who can no longer understand what those getting degrees in the 50s and 60s had as requirements. I would never recommend that any child or grandchild of mine go into teaching. Teachers are disrespected too much by the administrations. There have been some improvements, but teaching of reading is not back to the level of 80 years ago. From the late 30s to the 50s, the whole word method was exclusively used for teaching reading, and the results were as expected by all but the educationists. The production of books so that essentially all parents could teach their children to read using phonics has largely, but not completely, eliminated that atrocity. Here, you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge, which leads me to question everything that you have to say about this topic. The whole word approach to teaching reading did not become in vogue until the 1960s, and didn't become the primary method of teaching kids to read until the 1980s or 90s. By the latter date, it was under attack, and remains so to this day. You are wrong. Maybe you are both wrong, but I know for certain that you are. Phonics and whole word methods go in cycles. Ideally both would be used because some people learn best one way and some another. I do not know exactly what years the whole word method was used, but I was taught by the whole word method and never had any phonics - I was in first grade c 1941-42. I know it was whole word method because I remember taking my textbook and teaching my sister to read by that method. It was the Dick and Jane books - the first page of the one I had said "Look, look, look". And what they were looking at was the school bus. Dick and Jane also had a dog, but I forget what he was named. Spot maybe. The book that brought phonics in (my lifetime) to teaching reading was "Why Johnnie Can't Read" which was published in 1955. And the big push in science came from Sputnik - also in the 50s. snip What percentage of the population do you think attended school beyond the primary grades at that time? Anecdotally, my grandmother's siblings demanded that she leave school in 10th grade in the early 20s, telling her that she was far too old to be in school, and should clearly be out helping to support her family. Another anecdote - my grandmother and all her siblings (9 altogether) were all college graduates. My grandmother was born in the 1880s My grandfather (her husband) only went to eighth grade, but my father (born in 1904) and my mother (born in 1909) both graduated from college. snip Are you aware of the NCLB standards regarding *highly qualified teachers*? Are you aware of the requirement that teachers be able to pass certification examinations in each subject which they teach? How does that jive with your allegations? It doesn't prove anything about whether they can teach, and may not prove anything about whether they know their subject. It may just show that they are good at taking tests. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
entering kindergarten early
On May 25, 7:46 pm, toypup wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 19:29:31 -0700, toypup wrote: I was just discussing this with a co-worker who was this exact situation. Her child could read and do all the things that are required of kindergarteners. She tested into kindergarten and started when she was three turing four. She is now 8. The work is getting more difficult. When she was 3, she was ahead of the class. Now, her mother is contemplating holding her back, which is another can of worms. Your child may not always be ahead. This situation is something else to think about. Oh, and to follow up on that, the mother said if she had to do it all over again, she would not have enrolled her child in school early. She said she was young and was excited that her child could do what she could do. Who wouldn't be? This is one of those things where you wish you could reverse time. And just to take this to an extreme level, here's my early life story. My mother taught me all the pre-grade (ie, grade 1, grade 2 etc) the summer before, so that I would know it upon reaching that grade. Therefore, all my teachers thought I was brilliant, because I already knew all the stuff. Of course, I wasn't socially ready, and was a social outcast up until I left school altogether. I was bright enough, and would have been top grades all the way through school as it was. As it was, I was extremely unhappy until I left school at grade 12. Stasya |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
entering kindergarten early
On May 24, 9:52 am, toypup wrote:
On 24 May 2007 01:29:48 -0700, stasya wrote: I have to throw in my two cents here. There's a boy in my dd's kindergarten class who was in her playschool class last year. He is almost a full year older than dd, and in my opinion, quite ready for kindergarten last year. He is quite obviously older, more mature, the leader of the class, etc etc, which might be marvelous for some parents. However, I would be thinking personally as his parent that the class he's in is beneath him. He can obviously do the work, it's simply boring, repetitious, and not worth doing. Therefore, he doesn't excel because he knows he can do it and doesn't feel the need to prove it. Not to mention, if you want to meet a kid who's going to lead the others astray out of sheer boredom, there he is. Stasya Redshirting is a whole different issue, IMO. We have plenty of that here. Red-shirting, as far as I understand it, doesn't exist here. I imagine that people *might* hold their kids back, but I think in this instance, it's more of an emotional response rather than a logical decision in this case. I've never heard of this besides on this newsgroup. Stasya |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
entering kindergarten early
In article ,
"Engram" wrote: What's 'well socialised'? I think this is a great big furphy. A few percent of the children at DS1's school don't speak any English at home and start K without a word of it -- does that mean they aren't well socialised? No, they could be "well socialised" within a peer group speaking their first language. I couldn't speak English when I first went to school here. Neither could my sister. Doesn't mean we didn't have social skills. Where do you get "lack of English = lack of social skills"????? I think I'm feeling rather insulted here... I thought it was a fairly obvious example. You imply socialisation occurs through contact with age-peers. If a child doesn't speak the language, they can't socialise, so they can't become well-socialised, right?? Except that it's not true. If a child speaks only the home language, they have a big hurdle to jump when it comes to school. But at our school, the children seem to get along even when they can't speak a shared language very well. What I was trying to get at is the ability of a child to interact with others. If all a child knows is his immediate family and perhaps a babysitter/nanny/grandparents and if they do not interact with other kids their own age - whatever their language may be - then I think that if they go to school they will be ill-prepared for what awaits them there. Doesn't mean they won't survive. They'll just have a harder time of it. Again, this is not something I've seen. Where 5yos don't play nicely, it's not to do with not having spent time with lots of kids their own age: it's to do with being 5yos. They ARE direct with their language and they AREN'T empathetic. eg DS1 shouted at a little girl last year, "Go away! I don't want to play with you!" He was being a 5yo, not a misfit. (He was at day care 3 days/wk from the age of 2, and also involved in other social activities.) Kids can be very cruel. Being the brainiac "baby" of the class will not necessarily endear a child to the rest of the class. It isn't the Ks who are cruel. They are thoughtless at times, like DS1 above, but not cruel. DS1 has not been pilloried yet for being a brainiac (he is in Yr 1). IIRC that was more a 3rd and 4th grade thing when it happened to me, though I don't remember paying much attention to it. I understand that the average child doesn't start comparing people until about the age of 7; before that, they are too absorbed in their own experience. And that child may have an especially hard time if they do not know how to make friends. Language barrier be damned - kids make friends regardless, as long as they know how. You appear to believe that prior contact with age-peers is a prerequisite for good socialisation. I don't agree -- we're *made* in such a way that we seek interaction with others. That's why babies pick up language so fast, for example. It isn't the contact with age-peers that enables a kid to make friends; it's an innate drive. The only kids I've seen who have been 'poorly socialised' either have some kind of intellectual impairment or are struggling with major upheaval (eg removal from unfit parents) -- that is, the innate drive has been compromised. -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
entering kindergarten early
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Entering the 2nd trimester | Joybelle | Pregnancy | 4 | April 14th 05 12:28 AM |
Kindergarten!! | Cindy Senger | Twins & Triplets | 6 | August 27th 04 12:00 AM |
Stumbo v DSS, Calabretta v Floyd Caseworkers entering homes | Fern5827 | Spanking | 0 | August 11th 04 01:57 PM |
Early Kindergarten or not? | Rosalie B. | General | 23 | April 5th 04 12:13 AM |
Boys entering puberty | Wendy | General | 20 | October 20th 03 05:45 AM |