New Here, Q's about Kindergarten - Tips from those who've been there???

Sandi Jones writes:
Schools have changed. Kindergarten was OPTIONAL in most states when I
was a kid. Now it is required in most states, and the focus is now
academic, not social.

I believe that kindergarten attendance is still optional in most states.
However, attendance rates are much higher than they were a generation
ago.

Study after study has found that 5 year old little boys are not ready
to sit down, shut up, and keep both feet flat on the floor. With the
change of focus of kindergarten, more little boys are being prescribed
Ritalin and other drugs in order to enable them to cope with an
academic environment that they are not developmentally ready to
handle.

It seems to me that "sit down" and "shut up" are not inherent to the
"academic environment"; they are just aspects of how schools choose to
teach. It's perfectly possible to teach lots of "academic" content to
children who don't consistently "sit down" and "shut up". (After all,
it wouldn't be hard to teach all of the same "academic" material to
those same children, one-on-one, at home.) It's just that the schools
don't have the resources, or perhaps the inclination, to do that. They
have to teach large *numbers* of small children, with limited resources,
and that's why the focus on "mature" behavior becomes so important.

David desJardins

In the state of Ohio, it went mandatory when my oldest son, now 18
turned 5. He was among the first year of compulsory kindergarten in
Ohio. When I home schooled my younger 3 boys, most of the states that I
ran into other HSers in online also had compulsory kindergarten. For a
reasonably up to date list of which states have compulsory kindergarten
see: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/29/21/2921.pdf

Some states are considering mandating preschool. Head Start has been
pushing to pull children from their homes younger and younger. (Research
Florida 2002 "Voluntary Universal Pre-Kindergarten Education") I don't
see where taking children from the parents at younger and younger ages
will be good for society, or children. People claim that they don't
trust the government with this and with that, yet they trust them to
take their children? How many things does government do right? You want
them messing with your kid's head?

Public schools have limited resources? With their monopolistic control,
their segment of the economy has had the highest inflation in our
economy, higher than health care! What were class sizes when you were a
kid? What are they now? How many more illiterates pour out of the poor
system now?


Sandi Jones - I just looked at my kindergarten picture, all 35 kids!

David desJardins wrote:

I believe that kindergarten attendance is still optional in most states.
However, attendance rates are much higher than they were a generation
ago.


It seems to me that "sit down" and "shut up" are not inherent to the
"academic environment"; they are just aspects of how schools choose to
teach. It's perfectly possible to teach lots of "academic" content to
children who don't consistently "sit down" and "shut up". (After all,
it wouldn't be hard to teach all of the same "academic" material to
those same children, one-on-one, at home.) It's just that the schools
don't have the resources, or perhaps the inclination, to do that. They
have to teach large *numbers* of small children, with limited resources,
and that's why the focus on "mature" behavior becomes so important.

David desJardins

Sandi Jones wrote in message ...
In the state of Ohio, it went mandatory when my oldest son, now 18
turned 5. He was among the first year of compulsory kindergarten in
Ohio. When I home schooled my younger 3 boys, most of the states that I
ran into other HSers in online also had compulsory kindergarten. For a
reasonably up to date list of which states have compulsory kindergarten
see: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/29/21/2921.pdf

If you read the document closely, many states have compulsory
attendance ages of 6 or 7. Attendance in kindergarten is not required
in those states, although schools may be required to offer it.

Chris

In article ,
Sandi Jones wrote:

Some states are considering mandating preschool. Head Start has been
pushing to pull children from their homes younger and younger. (Research
Florida 2002 "Voluntary Universal Pre-Kindergarten Education") I don't
see where taking children from the parents at younger and younger ages
will be good for society, or children.

For children who would otherwise be at home with attentive, reasonably
educated parents, or in high quality daycares, that may indeed be true.
For children who would otherwise be in mediocre daycare or home with
less attentive parents, free preschool programs can be a fantastic
benefit.


Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)
--
For a challenging little arithmetic puzzle for kids and adults alike,
check out http://cgi.wff-n-proof.com/MSQ-Ind/I-1E.htm

Sandi Jones wrote:

Public schools have limited resources? With their monopolistic control,
their segment of the economy has had the highest inflation in our
economy, higher than health care! What were class sizes when you were a
kid? What are they now? How many more illiterates pour out of the poor
system now?

I think I had 20 in my kindergarten class, back in 1965 (!!!!)

That was more than DD had (16) or DS (13). I don't know how
many illiterates pour out of the school system here in WI,
but I think that about half of DD's and DS's classes were
illiterate when they started kindergarten, and maybe 25% of
them spoke no English. And now they all read at or above grade
level. I think that's a success.

And if you want to blame the cost of schooling on something, I
suggest you start with all the unfunded mandates that pour
out of the state and national Capitols. Leave no child
behind....yeah, right.

Scott, DD 10.5 and DS 7.9

Sandi Jones writes:
For a reasonably up to date list of which states have compulsory
kindergarten see: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/29/21/2921.pdf

Which certainly matches what I said: only 14 mandatory, out of 50.

I don't see where taking children from the parents at younger and
younger ages will be good for society, or children.

I think maybe you haven't met enough parents with, let's say, very
questionable parenting skills, or even lack of interest in parenting.
Homeschoolers are obviously a very different population. I think it's
entirely consistent to think that parents who want to teach their
children at home can often do a better job than the schools can, and
also to think that most children (whose parents have no interest in
that) would do better with earlier preschool attendance.

Public schools have limited resources? With their monopolistic control,
their segment of the economy has had the highest inflation in our
economy, higher than health care! What were class sizes when you were a
kid? What are they now? How many more illiterates pour out of the poor
system now?

I don't believe any of these claims, except the illiterates. (Which is
a symptom of a problem with parents, and the growing gap between rich
and poor in this country, not really a problem with the schools imho.
If someone's child is really not learning to read, the parent has to be
doing something very wrong, regardless of what's happening or not
happening in school.) Public schools in most of the US have less
resources than they did 1-2 generations ago (compared to the wealth of
the country---we are overall much wealthier, but that doesn't help
service economies like teaching). But class sizes are smaller than they
were. Certainly here in California. What is your data? I can't find
historical figures on US education spending, right now, but I can't
believe it's gone up significantly, as a fraction of GDP. (In the same
period that health care has gone up dramatically.)

David desJardins

If someone's child is really not learning to read, the parent has to be
doing something very wrong, regardless of what's happening or not
happening in school.

Oh, my. You're a person who backs up your statements with research, David.
Surely you don't mean that the way it came out.

If a child is not learning to read, any number of things may be going wrong,
independent of parental effort and initiative. Our son is an only child of two
highly educated parents who read to him daily from infancy and did everything
everyone tells you to do, and he still struggled to learn to read and it really
didn't click until this year (5th grade). It's taken a considerable amount of
effort, tutoring and diagnostics to get him on track (he now gets A's in
reading, it is his best subject).

-Dawn
Mom to Henry, 11, who struggled with reading for years but who will not accept
that it had anything to do with her parenting skills.

Dawn writes:
If a child is not learning to read, any number of things may be going
wrong, independent of parental effort and initiative. Our son is an
only child of two highly educated parents who read to him daily from
infancy and did everything everyone tells you to do, and he still
struggled to learn to read and it really didn't click until this year
(5th grade).

That seems to support my point. The point was that, if children are
*leaving* the school system *illiterate* (as Sandi Jones said), the
parents are doing something wrong. Your child isn't going to be an
illiterate high-school dropout, and that's because of your decisions and
actions.

David desJardins

Dawn writes:
If a child is not learning to read, any number of things may be going
wrong, independent of parental effort and initiative. Our son is an
only child of two highly educated parents who read to him daily from
infancy and did everything everyone tells you to do, and he still
struggled to learn to read and it really didn't click until this year
(5th grade).

That seems to support my point. The point was that, if children are
*leaving* the school system *illiterate* (as Sandi Jones said), the
parents are doing something wrong. Your child isn't going to be an
illiterate high-school dropout, and that's because of your decisions and
actions.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm sure you realize that is *not* what you said -- you
*said* that if a child isn't learning to read -- not if a child hasn't learned
to read by high school age.

Still, I think there's much more in play than parental actions. We had the
money and the independent knowledge to do something about our son's struggles.
If we did not have resources (money, health insurance that covered some of the
testing, etc) as well as knowledge and contacts with people who could advise us
independent of the school's assessment, we might have resigned ourselves to
having a child who was just not very bright.

It's not hard for me to imagine how low-income, less-educated parents might not
have been able to find the right answers. I lay the responsibility for that
with the schools, not the parents. IMNSH (and certainly not unbiased) O, Henry
is bright enough that someone, in 5 years of public schooling, should have
recognized that he was not reading well. Unless and until our schools can do
that, whole generations of differently abled low-income kids will never reach
their full potential.


-Dawn
Mom to Henry, 11

Dawm writes:
Thanks for clarifying. I'm sure you realize that is *not* what you
said -- you *said* that if a child isn't learning to read -- not if a
child hasn't learned to read by high school age.

Well, I was talking about the children described in the post I was
replying to, the ones who are leaving school while illiterate. I
thought it was obvious that I was not referring to any child, of any
age, who can't read; in that case it would also apply to one year olds.
I don't expect one year olds to be able to read.

My comment also doesn't apply to some children with severe handicaps,
who aren't capable of learning to read. Probably there are other
exceptions, too.

It's not hard for me to imagine how low-income, less-educated parents
might not have been able to find the right answers. I lay the
responsibility for that with the schools, not the parents. IMNSH (and
certainly not unbiased) O, Henry is bright enough that someone, in 5
years of public schooling, should have recognized that he was not
reading well.

I don't doubt that, but it's hard for me to believe that the school
didn't notice. Do you mean that, in his report cards, and
parent-teacher conferences, the school claimed that he could read, when
he actually couldn't?

And certainly, the parents should realize that their child can't read,
whether or not the school does. It seems that you did realize that your
son was struggling to read, so the "recognizing" wasn't a problem in
your case.

As you say, it can happen that some parents may realize the problem, but
not do anything effective about it. I *understand* how that can happen.
But I still think that they are failing in one of their basic
responsibilities as parents.

I also understand, very well, how the schools can be unable to fix the
problem for every child. At least, it's very easy to understand here in
California, where the schools are extremely limited in their resources
these days (and it's getting worse). I think that parents have more of
an ability to direct more resources at their children's problems than
the schools do, because our society has decided that we are only willing
to allocate X tax dollars to education: the schools just don't have the
option to spend more than that. Parents can (and should) prioritize
education more highly within their own family, when there's a problem.

I think that parents may rely on the schools for what schools
do---schools are an important resource for parents---but that doesn't
relieve the parents of the primary responsibility to ensure that their
children learn, and to intervene if it's not happening. IMHO, this is
just part (a big part) of the responsibility that people assume when
they decide to become parents.

David desJardins