Get Schooled

By JustMe

February 20, 2007 08:36 AM | Link to this

IMHO, this is the march away from parents doing their job and pushing the responsibility onto the government. This will, of course, mean higher taxes to pay for the higher cost.

Is this really what our society wants? Unfortunately, it may be what our society needs….

As we look further down this road that we are on, I see a government official in the birthing room ready to take the infant from the mother. Then, off the infant goes to some government institution never to be seen again.

By Jeff

February 20, 2007 08:37 AM | Link to this

I thought kindergarten was a requirement???

Anyways…

To me, dropping a kid off for thier first day of school ever as a first grader seems ridiculous. Those kids are more than likely STARTING OFF WAYYY behind. Sounds like overprotective mommies and daddies to me.

Start em as soon as they pop out. The earlier the better. Heck, I’ve been told it is easier to teach Calculus to a 6 year old than an 18 year old…. I may just try that when I start a family!

By wwww

February 20, 2007 09:40 AM | Link to this

5????

I remember this time in my life fondly. Half a day preschool 3 days a week. Time spent outside in the yard with my sister making up games. I think we lose sight that life is supposed to be enjoyable when possible. Let kids be kids!

If I’m ever lucky enough to have a 5 yr old, I’m not sending them to school all day.

And no offense to Jeff, but does a 6 yr old really need to start learning calculus? Does the majority of the population NEED to learn higher math and science EVER? No, probably not.
Let’s relax and slow down the pace. Enough is enough.

By jim d

February 20, 2007 09:53 AM | Link to this

I don’t know, but from what I’ve read regarding this issue I think rather than questioning whether young children are ready for school, perhaps we should instead be asking, are schools ready for them? Raising the age at which children start their formal learning to six, following European models, and seeing birth-to-six as the first phase of education, could be a significant move in supporting children in the transition to primary school.

In Denmark and Finland children begin formal education at age 6 while in the UK they start at 4 or 5.

The outcomes of the systems are different. Six-year-olds in England were generally well ahead of those in Denmark and Finland in terms of the three Rs. However, by the age of 15, according to a recent international survey, Finnish children outperformed all others in reading and mathematical and scientific literacy.

So maybe there’s something to waiting and not pushing kids at such an early age.

By Tootie

February 20, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

UM, my child started Kindergarten at the age of 5. I thought that’s when they were supposed to start. Everyone I know who has a five year old, has them in school. Why is this an issue?

By new parent

February 20, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

does anyone know of programs that cater to a 2 year old’s development for an half of day without mommie or daddy there mainly for social development?

By meme

February 20, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

Maybe some of the lawmakers would like for us to start day care as part of the public school system.

By jim d

February 20, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Toots,

obviously it’s an issue because some people understand the law and elect to hold their kids out. The problem then becomes that they aren’t on the same level as everyone else although they may catch up and surpass them, Government doesn’t get to begin their indoctrination a year earlier.

God forbid we should have children actually capable of independent thought without government indoctrination.

By SW

February 20, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

It makes me sad that some people can regard Kindergarten as something that is not worthwhile. I am a Kindergarten teacher and my kids are always prepared to move on to first grade and be successful. Most can read, count and write to 100, and they are ready for what comes next in their school career. It is hard for little ones to be in school all day, but that is why they have Pre-K, to help them adjust to school and prepare them for what is to come. Also, please do not think that the entire day is nose to grind for these 5 year olds. We have plenty of “fun time”, with recess, centers, etc.

By ron

February 20, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

wwww is right;you don’t need to learn science or math to work at Burger King.Should you aspire to a higher position in life,I would recommend a different cirriculum. In 1948,I started the first grade when I was 5 years old.I have never regretted it.Icould not imagine a world without higher math and science.

By jim d

February 20, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

new parent,

If you are interested most Montessori schools accept kids as early as 3

By jim d

February 20, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

SW,

Perhaps for some. But making it mandatory? I’m not too sure that would be of any real benefit.

By new parent

February 20, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

what about the the children school or the goddard school…what is the earliest if you know right off hand?

By Jack

February 20, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Jim D: I really enjoy your point of view when you post to various blogs, however sometimes I feel a need to disagree with you sometimes.

Montessori schools are great however they are very costly, therefore making it hard on parents that do not have the financial ability to make use of such private schools or daycares.

I think age 5 is a great age to start children in school. I also do not think that the government trys to indoctrinate education. I would put my children in school at the age of 3 if I had the financial means to do so.

I still believe that a well educated person is far more successful and earns a higher wage than those that gain success from real life experience verses education or from those that gain success by self motivated, self employeed means.

By SW

February 20, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

It is always apparent which children have had prior school experience (Pre-K; parents who prepare them) and which ones have had no help. These kids come to school a blank slate and Kindergarten is not the place to be learning colors, letters, and numbers for the first time anymore. Again, the reason we have a state funded Pre-K program. If there was some accountability for the parents, then we would not need a mandatory age requirement, but there is not. They come to school and fall behind, because their classmates already know the basics and are ready to move forward.

By SET

February 20, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

One way to look at this is that the government, state and federal, is growing and enlarging the underclass and proletariat. Since everyone knows that these people can’t even be trusted to brush their teeth, the gov’t is writing more and more legislation to control all aspects of family life. As if there were families anymore anyway.

The shrinking middle class would have been expected to handle these decisions on their own but legislation is no more about the American Middle Class. Legislation is all about managing the proletariat written, by legislators who send their kids to private schools.

Be warned, Health care is the next big battleground. In Canada it’s illegal to pay your Doctor for anything - they can only give and you can only have the health care allowed by the government. Medical tourism is allowed for the rich. That way the proletariat can’t actually see the upper class having real health care - since that occurs in Seattle and New York USA.

When congress finishes we will be lining up in our assigned clinics to take what we can get from our assigned (3rd world?) Doctors. The upper classes will be going to closed private clinics which limit practice to select membership paying patients.

I know - bad news again. But look at this thread in context. It’s not just about kindergarten. It’s about power and control.

By Ella

February 20, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

My neighbors are planning to enroll their already-much-larger-than-his-peers child in kindergarten when he is SIX years old, instead if five. He doesn’t have any development delays. The parents are doing this because they believe an older, larger child will have a competitive advantage of his peers in terms of academics and athletics. Unbelievable.

By Lee

February 20, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

For years and years, First grade meant just that, the first year of school. Way back when, when I first started to school, we didn’t have Kindergarten, much less Pre-K. I seem to have made it through my formative years without too much damage.

Of course, back then, mothers didn’t HAVE to work in order to pay the nearly 70% tax rates we have today. They were able to stay at home and nurture their children.

This is just another example of the government trying to control more and more of our lives.

By jim d

February 20, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

First of all I’m not saying early childhood education is good or bad. I simply do not believe in the one size fits all concept of requiring (by law) that all five year olds attend school.

There are many pro’s and cons to this subject and each parent needs to make the call based on what they feel is best for their child. However, I don’t believe we need a government mandate requiring all 5 year olds to be in school.

Here’s an intersting read on the subject though.

http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/topsyn3.html

Thanks Jack,

I think we can agree to disagree. But my response to new parent was simply an answer to the question. She didn’t ask about free services, simply available programs.

By jim d

February 20, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

Ella,

Unbelieveable? Not really—there’s research to support those parents claims.

By jim d

February 20, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

LOL Lee,

“I seem to have made it through my formative years without too much damage.”

I’ve always been told “Perception is strong and sight weak. It is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.”

By mommytomax&alex

February 20, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

My sister is a preschool teacher, teaching 3-4 year olds. She also teaches at an after school care program at our local public elementary school. She says it is soooo amazingly obvious who had been in a school environment and who has not. Those that have been kept at home are obviously behind, not only in acadamics but also in social development, gross and motor skills, and other necessary skills. I would feel very sorry for a kid who’s first classroom experience is a first grade classroom in a public school. They would be so behind their peers at so many levels. My oldest is now in K, and THRIVING thanks to his pre-school program. I would hate to have him deprived of this HUGE advantage. to Newparent: there a lots of mothers morning out programs out there in many local churches that would accept your 2 year old for a couple of mornings a week. I guarantee that he/she will LOVE it, learn loads, and you will get a well-deserved break!

By wwww

February 20, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

Ron:

Well, hate to burst your bubble, but I don’t work at BK Lounge. Sure, higher math and science are important. For SOME people, in SOME positions. I’m not arguing that fact.

However, what I do object to is this silly need for EVERYONE to be educated all the way through Physics and Calculus. It’s just not necessary for the majority of professions, in any arena.

Also, we get soooo caught up in “my kids can do this and that because they started school at 6 months with Spanish tapes in the nursery” that we lose sight of the much bigger goal we should all have: educating kids, not just in the scholarly sense, but with empathy, pride in themselves, and a social consciousness to help others and the world. This is something that is not always up to preschools and public schools, or shouldn’t be, anyway.

Personally, who cares whether kids start at 5 or 6. What is important is the quality of the education they recieve, not the quantity.

And please, let’s remember that there is more to learning than math and science. English, history, art, music, foreign language, etc. should be equally as important.

By mmm

February 20, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Ella,

The law has a specific age range for a child to be in K and a different one for 1st grade—-so your friend had better ask, because her son may be required to be placed in 1st grade when he is presented at age 6. They had better ask, or their smart little ploy may backfire on their son.

These specific age requirements also restrict what can and cannot be done to accelerate advanced kids at the k and 1st grade level—much to some parents chagrin.

By Susan

February 20, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Anyone that has read and studied about Early Childhood Education should know that starting children in kdg. at 5 years old is extremely important. If a child shows up for school - for first grade - with no time in school before that, there will be problems. They learn basic letters, numbers, and social skills in kdg. and it will be very difficult for that child who hasn’t had this.

By Kea

February 20, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

I have a 3 year old and he goes to a learning academy. I love it, and he loves it. He is more than ready for kindergarten and he can’t wait. To the new parent. Enroll your child in Jamboree, or maybe a mommie day out place (church’s, community centers, etc. ). Go online..if you live in Smyrna, go the our community center. They have so many things for toddlers to do w/out mommie or daddie.

By jim d

February 20, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

All y’all,

Before condeming starting at the ripe old age of six, please read the linked study. Read some facts other than the propaganda we’re spoon fed in the US and then decide.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/assets/3327.pdf

By msbzzy

February 20, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

And you wonder why GA is consistently at the bootom of the barrel. Children should start K at age 5 with a cutoff of Dec 1 for the child to turn 5. Making a child wait due to a late fall birthday, puts them further behind when they start school. Personally, I have been preparing my daughter for school since birth, it is called parenting!!! She will be starting K in August and will be well prepared, my advice is prepare them as early as possible, whether it be a structured classroom or their bedroom floor.

By msbzzy

February 20, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

And you wonder why GA is consistently at the bootom of the barrel. Children should start K at age 5 with a cutoff of Dec 1 for the child to turn 5. Making a child wait due to a late fall birthday, puts them further behind when they start school. Personally, I have been preparing my daughter for school since birth, it is called parenting!!! She will be starting K in August and will be well prepared, my advice is prepare them as early as possible, whether it be a structured classroom or their bedroom floor.

By JustMe

February 20, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

SET -

I do not see it as government forcing themselves into our lives for control. I see it as (some) parents not doing THEIR job and so the government MUST step in for the sake of the children.

There is a rather large difference here.

And, in response to your health care concerns…. IMHO, the government will only step in if the current health care system fails to serve. And, this is what is happening. Insurance companies and pharm companies are demanding higher and higher profits thus making adequate health care less and less available. When this does happen, it is the responsibility of the government to set in on behave of the people.

If you do not want government to step in, as you seem to proclaim, you need to work to “fix” the current health care system, and work to “fix” the parents that are not doing their job.

By jim d

February 20, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

To reitterate;

The question we should be asking is not if the children are ready for school but are the schools ready for the children?

By wwww

February 20, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

msbzzy: You are doing your job. Preparing your child for her future education. I think what people are objecting to (including me) is making it mandatory for all children to start at age 5. There should be some leeway here. I don’t like spending my entire day at work, week after week. There has to be a time in a person’s life when it’s just enjoyable, and for many people, that is their early childhood years. Enough with the mass, across the board apporach to all kids already.

The sad thing is, some people should not be parents and do nothing to get their kids ready for school. In order to educate all children adequately, we would have to start at around age 2. And, I don’t see that happening.

By JustMe

February 20, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

jim d-

Oh come on! Has anyone ever really cared if schools were ready?

Even today, we don’t care if schools/teachers are ready, do we? There is a large shortage of high school teachers in certain subjects (math, science), but are we really doing ANYTHING about it?

There is lip service about reducing class size, but that is all.

If we really did care, we would increase teacher pay at least for those areas of shortages to attract more numbers of and better qualified teachers. But, that won’t happen in GA.

Do we really care or is it all lip service? Think about it and you tell me!

By jim d

February 20, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Just me,

work to “fix” the parents that are not doing their job.

That was attempted back in 65.

When Head Start was founded in 1965, it was hailed as a revolutionary way to help America’s poorest children prepare for school. The idea, advocates said, was to create that proverbial level playing field. Then in 2001 the president of the country’s second-largest teachers union announced a new path to that mythical leveled field, declaring that all children — middle class, working class and poor — should be eligible to attend quality pre-school programs like Head Start.

All of this took place because middle class parents became jealous and concerned their little darlings were being left behind.

By Penguinmom

February 20, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

I don’t have a problem with parents sending their children to school all day at 5 if that’s what the parent chooses to do. I also don’t have a problem with a parent who chooses to give their child one more year of unstructured learning before they have to enter the world of crowd control rules and regulations.

What I have a problem with is some legislator deciding that my 5 year old has to enter school ready or not.

You are setting a child up for failure if you force them to send him/her to the heavy structure of the school environment before he/she is emotionally/physically ready for the experience.

By teach overseas

February 20, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

To Ella and others

This is very prevelant in high powered schools in the North. It’s called “red shirting” and it’s used by parents who want their child (usually a boy) to be older and bigger than their peers to help them become “leaders” both in school and on the sports field.

By jim d

February 20, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

Just me,

“we would increase teacher pay “

I have no problem with that if teachers would agree to a merit pay scale rather than one based on tenure. (now that should surely start a whole new debate)

By Jenn

February 20, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

I’m kind of chuckling about the various posts stating the obvious:

Of course there is a visible difference between kids who went to PreK/K and those who didn’t. The kids who spent time in PreK/K know how to exist in an institutionalized group setting. They know the rules: speak when given permission, use the bathroom when given permission, learn (i.e., be “taught”) according to the teacher’s schedule and the bureaucrats’ inifinite wisdom. They also know the consequences for not following these and oh-so-many-other rules.

Kids who have not had this experience ask annoying questions according to their desire for knowledge, want to use the bathroom or get a drink of water according to their physical needs, want to learn on their own schedule. Yes indeed, there is a difference.

Not really the point of this debate. Or is it?

By Todd

February 20, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

Well, I am an educator and I don’t care. The sad thing is that most of my kids are not the brightest in the world. It has nothing to do with when a child begins education, but the family support and independent study that a child does.

Sure, children learn in school. But to be successful, children must study on their own. We have children who are 16 and 17 still in middle school. We have children in middle school reading at 3rd grade level.

This is not the fault of education—of the just passing the buck and letting the kids get promoted so you don’t have to deal with them anymore. This is because we promote teenagers popping out babies by giving them welfare and WIC checks and rewarding them for getting pregnant. Then their kids will be as stupid as they are.

Families educate the children, not school. School provides an atmosphere to enhance education, but true schooling must be at the home. Parents only care about babysitting nowadays. They send their kids to us for free meals and to raise their children.

So start the kids at any age-it won’t help.

By jim d

February 20, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

Just me,

Are the schools ready?

I think not. If they were they’d be prepared to deal with the discipline problems with this age group. I offer for your consideration, the following observation.

A child at age 5 with a discipline problem may tend to continue this adverse behavior as a means of getting attention. This may continue until it becomes habit and well into high school. If the schools were truly prepared for ALL AGE 5 STUDENTS many of these problems wouldn’t persist into high school.

By Penguinmom

February 20, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

jim d,

I don’t think the schools are always ready for the kids they have now. Here in Gwinnett, there is a perpetual cycle of trailers, new schools, new district lines, then trailers again…

This leads to rules designed strictly for crowd control. I have a homeschool friend who recently had to put her children into school. Her daughter is in 5th grade and she was perfectly prepared academically, and has made friends so socially wasn’t an issue either. Where she has run into problems is being unprepared for the incredibly structured rules of the school. She got in trouble the first day for getting up to get her ice cream too early (no one told her there were strict time periods when you could ice cream and when you can’t). Another day she astonished the class by standing up to sharpen her pencil in the afternoon (another no-no she hadn’t been informed about.) She has adjusted as have her siblings but I’m sure there are some people who think they weren’t ‘prepared’ for school because they didn’t know all of these rules.

This level of rules is fine for a 5th grader and I understand that it is necessary to some extent based on the huge number of children that are in our school system. But do we really need the government saying that every 5-year-old should be forced to live for 6 or 7 hours a day in that kind of structured world?

By mmm

February 20, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

My husband’s grandmother was one of the pilot head start teachers upon which many of the early studies that show the poorest children doing much better with head start was based. She was an amazing lady who could easily beat me at scrabble when she was 90. In the ‘60 many of the sharpest, most independent minded women became teachers and nurses because they were barred from other professions. While I don’t mean to denigrate any individual today—I want to say that if she had grown up today, she would probably have landed in some other better-paying profession.

The staff at head-start and most other daycare or early education programs are often only doing the minimum necessary to warehouse the kids—12 to 18 at a time. There is often high turnover and often little effort by the adults. Yes, it is probably better for poor kids. But 2-3 kids with an involved college educated and ATTENTIVE parent watching them or passing them around to playdates with other similarly well attended to parents probably would beat many of the head-start, pre-K or K programs that are out there. Especially in urban areas.

I wonder if anyone has done any accessment of how helpful head-start is today?

By JustMe

February 20, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

jim d-

The problem mentioned in my post was shortage of teachers in a particular area. The solution I proposed was to increase pay for those teachers in the shortage area - this should increase more people to that area.

How would your proposal of connecting teacher pay to merit help the teacher shortage? I see no connection here, but rather your attempt to interject your biased opinion on the matter.

By the way, as a teacher, if my pay was based on merit (student success), I would be making more that double my current salary. So trust me, it is not a personal reason why I am against merit pay!!!!

By jim d

February 20, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Penguinmom,

You just raised the hair on the back of my neck with the mention of Gwinnett’s “modular learning units”. (a really touchy subject)

By JustMe

February 20, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

mmm -

It is my understanding that head start made a large impact early on in its life. However, as years went by, the impact that head start was making decreased until today, when stats have shown that head start really isn’t making much difference at all.

Hope this helps….

By jim d

February 20, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

Just me,

LOL—QUILTY as charged

“my biased opinon”

By lynn d

February 20, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

mmm

The latest research shows that the differences/advantages between children who attend Head Start and those who don’t (controlling for socio-economics, etc) dissappear my 2nd grade.

Along the same lines, I have a friend whose child was reading at 4 — she was applying her child to all of Atlanta’s top private schools. At one interview, after my friend told of her child’s wonderful reading skills — the headmistress informed my friend that the best readers in kindergarten are normally not the best readers in 2nd grade. (And for my friend’s child, this certainly held true, though not at that school, she didn’t get in)

By catkadt

February 20, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

In my experience, the children who don’t go to kindergarten are those of the wealthy/well-educated, and them starting “late” isn’t a problem: they are already ahead. I don’t really think there is a magic number for any of this, but, as a long-time public school kindergarten teacher, I shy away from mandatory school for ever-younger kids. Part of it is economic, part of it is a fear that we continue to take over more and more parental functions, and part of it is driven by the idea that a lot of what goes on in pre-k and K now is not developmentally appropriate for many kids.

By JustMe

February 20, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

jim d-

You did not answer my question to you: how would connecting teacher pay to merit help with the teacher shortage in certain areas?

I look forward to your reply!

By Jeff

February 20, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

jim:

I just had an idea (Bridgette, feel free to tell me what you think about this):

Why don’t we start up a “Man to Man” here on Get Schooled, of the same vein as Diane and Shaunti’s “Woman to Woman”. Our first topic could be Merit Pay! :P

By HS Teacher Too

February 20, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Jim D — Many of us both in and outside of the teaching field don’t disagree with the idea of merit pay (I, for one, hate “years in service” pay); but can’t agree on how to implement it.

I speak from experience to say I see infinite problems with it, and almost all of those problems are borne of the issue of how best to measure merit. If we can solve that, we can move on from there, with some hope for changing the system.

But you talk about a can of worms … we circle right back to testing …

By Jack

February 20, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

TODD: Even though your above comments were not on topic, I must say that I agree with you 100%. A childs true learning ability does start and end with the parent or parents. When a childs parent does not require their child to study, help them with their education and be a teacher to them then yes they will most likely be under achievers.

On this subject I think that their is absolutly nothing wrong on mandated school age start of 5yrs old. I also agree with JIM D, teachers should either be paid on merit or set merit up as a monthly paycheck bonus on top of their saleries.

By jim d

February 20, 2007 01:07 PM | Link to this

Just me

I did answer your question, “QUILTY as charged”

HS2,

The can of worms would be teachers being paid what they are worth and not what they think they are worth. Granted, that would be difficult at best to measure but if we can measure kids abilities thru dumb, meaningless tests, surely a method of measuring a teachers worth could be developed. (grin)

Now back on topic;

Children learn at widely varying rates. Obviously, not all six year olds are at the same level in learning,regardless of if they start at age 5 or not. Most schools continue to act as though they are, or insist that they should be, even though documentation exists to show by 3rd grade those that didn’t start until 6 have generally caught up with their peers that started at 5.

So why the push to force all 5 year olds into a structured school classroom? Well other than the obvious, increased sale of portable classrooms and the highering of more teachers.

By tmc

February 20, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this

My DS is 4, turned right after the cut off of September 1st. He has a cousin 2 weeks older who is in the Pre-K program this year, he starts in August. He will turn 6 right after starting K. This bothered me a lot at first, but he wasn’t any where near where his female cousin was or is. He is in a pre-school program now and we do work with him at home, but there are times that he just isn’t interested in doing his alphabet or other things I am ready for him to do. We read every night, several books and I do see him making progress. I do believe that my son will benefit more from following the current standards. Others have told me he would catch up in 1st or 2nd grade though. I don’t know and maybe I am glad that it isn’t my decision to make?

Should the “government” regulate the start age? Well many other states do require K so I would assume there would be studies to support this idea, although I only know of states that have a half day K program to ease kids into the routine.

I believe that education is the parents responsibility and that is supported by the schools. If my kids fall behind, I know it is my fault to take appropriate steps. I will be sending my son to pre-k for socialization and routine (he also loves doing arts and crafts!) and if he is able to learn more academically, that will be a bonus!

By Ladawnj

February 20, 2007 02:20 PM | Link to this

I believe 5 is a great age!! I have served in the military and was stationed in Japan, where their children is in school at the age of 3!! Start them early!! I believe you get better results. Why not teach Calculus to a 5 or 6 year old. With all the different test a student have to pass to be promoted, it is needed.

By scott

February 20, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

What is the difference between the law requiring kids to go to school at 5 instead of 6. If you have a problem of when it is time to send your child to school; then home school them. Everyone know learning is not a one size fits all situation, however I do not want your child who does not know their alphabet, colors, shapes, etc. slowing the development of my kid and others who are ready to plow ahead.
America does such a bad job educating and pushing our brightest students. All the focus and money is placed on low performing and kids with special needs. All kids need an opportunity to do their very best; not to be the big fish in the pond, when the world is an ocean. (If you went to Pre-K or K, you should understand this analogy)

By jim d

February 20, 2007 03:11 PM | Link to this

Some of y’all are really missing the boat on this one.

Two of the best educational systems in the world, Denmark and Finland, don’t start kids in formal schooling until they’re 7-8 and then only provide them with 9 years of education instead of 13.

If they can do the job in 9 years why the hell are we taking 4 years and an average of $24-25,000 more per student to accomplish the same results?

Assuming a county the size of Gwinnett that graduates more than 10,000 students a year the savings of reducing their education by four years would add up to some tremendous savings. Of course we’d also be able to reduce class size and need fewer classrooms, but hey, gotta feed those contractors!

By Truth Filter

February 20, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

This may be a non-issue, really.

About 130,000 kids attend kindergarten according to the article (I’m assuming that’s public school only). That’s more than attend any elementary school grade. Click here to see the breakdown

So it looks like kids are going to Kindergarten even though it’s not a law.

By scott

February 20, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this

For everyone extolling the virtures of other countries, remember these countries have a more homogenous student population. Lawsuits and court decisions formulate the educational framework more than anything else. What may work for another culture or country can not easily translate to a multi-cultural, diverse learning styles, and varied language student population of a school system like Gwinnett county.

By jim d

February 20, 2007 03:26 PM | Link to this

OH,OH,

I find this one of those rare occassions that I must correct an error in a previous statement.

I Said; “If they can do the job in 9 years why the hell are we taking 4 years and an average of $24-25,000 more per student to accomplish the same results?”

The correction is that they are producing better results with 4 years less schooling.

By jim d

February 20, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

Scott,

WHY NOT?

By InWonder

February 20, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

Uh, Scott. I work at a large international company and deal with many people from around the world and their educational system is very multi-cultural (they often have to learn multiple languages), even more than ours (have you looked at a map lately of Europe??). Kids around the world have different learning abilities too.

By luvs2teach

February 20, 2007 04:23 PM | Link to this

This is just another example of the one-size-fits-all mentality: She’s 5 - she must be ready for kindergarten!

I would like to see more flexible grouping based on readiness, not chronological age. I would like to see that flexible grouping continue until reading ability is well established. I don’t think mandatory school for 5 year olds is needed.

Kindergarten here is a very long day - even with naps, recess, and centers. Not all kids are ready for that, just because their birth certificate says so. Many kids thrive in a private half-day setting.

Many school rules and procedures are aimed at crowd control and smooth running of a classroom - however, depending on the job you work, you will encounter many similar rules - we’re training the common masses for the world of work, right?

jim d and others mentioned countries that start later - while it’s true their countries are more homogeneous, they also don’t try to have their schools teach everything! Many of them also have longer school years than we do - accomplishing more in each calendar year - yet many have SHORTER school days.

As far as reading readiness goes, I’ve seen two different trends: the first is as a gifted teacher - in Georgia, once identified, always gifted. Well, we have lots of higher SES, well-parented kids who come into K or !st well ahead of their peers - because of preparation, not because of natural ability. By 5th grade, they usually have evened out on tests such as the ITBS - they still do well, however, they wouldn’t qualify for gifted if re-evaluated. Then I have the experience of my two children - they had the typical pre-K & K education - I read to them, we watched Sesame Street, they knew their letters and what not - but they weren’t independent readers, nor did I push them to be. In second grade, age 7, right about when Piaget says this stage of development takes place, they both blossomed - and now they are both excellent readers. Although neither is “gifted”, they are both AC/honors students.

Fianlly - off-topic but about pay - how about a per child credit in addition to the time in service pay? Isn’t that something that could be compensated? How about a high priority subject bonus? Then throw in some merit pay on top of that - but make the merit pay based on something measurable that you are responsible for - for example, if I get a kid on the 4th grade level in math in the 8th grade, and I get him to a 6th grade level, I want credit for 2 years growth in 1 year time! I don’t want to not get any credit because I didn’t get him to an 8th grade level.

By jim d

February 20, 2007 05:00 PM | Link to this

OMG luv,

You mean test the kids on how much they’ve learned and how they’ve advanced rather than on their ability to be like everyone else?

Ya right—like that’ll ever happen in our lifetime! (might if we get rid of that little thing called nclb)

By catlady

February 20, 2007 05:08 PM | Link to this

Luvs, What do you mean, you didn’t get him up to 8th grade level in one year! What kind of a sorry teacher are you? We have to work wonders, or we are FAILURES, right? All children, regardless, will be average (and maybe they will be if we lower standards enough….) You teachers need to work harder! work longer! raise your expectations! handle any problems a kid brings to school! Or you are not doing your job, and are waaayy overpaid! Don’t forget, you get paid not to work in the summers! And it is an 8-3 job! And you have this teacher’s union making sure you are well taken care of!

Sorry, I guess I got off track a little…. :)

By luvs2teach

February 20, 2007 05:39 PM | Link to this

LOL, catlady and jim d, LOL :-)

I hear they’re hiring in Lake Wobegon…

By catlady

February 20, 2007 05:39 PM | Link to this

Part of the problem, from my perspective, about basing teacher pay on student achievement, even student “gains”, is that motivating students to put their best effort on tests, even CRCT, is an uphill swim in my community. They don’t care; they are going on to the next grade anyway, and some of them are even “coached” by their parents to do less well so they will have that month of free babysitting in the summer and the free afternoon babysitting—I mean tutoring—before the CRCT. Yeah, hard to believe, but TRUE. If you can measure what they have learned accurately, that is one thing. I just don’t see a way to do it given the current climate.

By luvs2teach

February 20, 2007 05:42 PM | Link to this

Also hard to believe, but I’ve seen kids blow a test because they didn’t like the teacher - that’s 8th grader for you…

Luckily most of my kids like me…or I’ve bribed them really well!

By catlady

February 20, 2007 05:44 PM | Link to this

Sorry about the mixed metaphors in the last post. I meant an upstream swim. I feel very discouraged after doing lots of prep for these tests, including motivational stuff, only to have kids rush through and Christmas (oops, holiday) tree the answer sheet. It does not seem to matter for most of them the way it does for me:(

By luvs2teach

February 20, 2007 05:50 PM | Link to this

catlady - I guess the thing that bothers me the most is that there have been times in my life when I was bound and determined to fail (had to do with stuff at home), and I had terrific teachers who tried to help me - I DID NOT WANT TO BE HELPED! I would hate to think that my rebellion would’ve in any way negatively reflected on them - it was on ME! 100%

By catlady

February 20, 2007 05:52 PM | Link to this

Another problem on the merit pay issue is the sorry state of our tests available, such as the CRCT. We need something more sophisticated and RELIABLE if we are basing teacher salary on it, and not something that is so easy to be manipulated.

Understand, however, that these objections are coming from someone on the bottom right hand side of the state salary schedule.

By juustine

February 20, 2007 06:54 PM | Link to this

The facts are the facts. Children who attend pre-school and kindergarten usually do a lot better than those who did not. Here is my question how can anyone in their right mind oppose any thing which would provide more education to a child. I know the answer - - Its the Prison Industry Complex they always want and need more people.

By catlady

February 20, 2007 07:10 PM | Link to this

juustine, the key is determining which is cause and which is effect. Do children with early school experiences do better because of those experiences, or would they have done better anyway? Keeping parental SES and education equal, does early schooling make a significant difference? Students who go to Harvard seem to come out with a huge advantage, but did they have that advantage before they went in?

So saying, I think appropriate, age-based education is great. Sometimes, in a rush for votes or daycare or whatever, we lose the focus on developmental needs. Sometimes the best developmentally appropriate education is provided in the HOME. And I sure think some kind of early schooling, even poorly designed, is better than some kid’s home life.

By KA

February 20, 2007 07:14 PM | Link to this

juustine, the key word is mandatory; do we need mandatory school beginning at age 5? I would say NO, as there are plenty of private options for early, early childhood education, and of course the best teacher is mom or dad at home with the child.

By KA

February 20, 2007 07:21 PM | Link to this

hey catlady, guess we agree that there’s no place like home….

By Older Mom

February 20, 2007 08:14 PM | Link to this

My son was no where near ready to go to school full time when he was 5. He had no interest in learning his alphabet etc. He was able to attend a pre-k program at age 5 but the school felt that something was wrong with him since he did not know his alphabet or nursery rhymes. Forget the fact he spoke two languages (we were living overseas at the time, dealing with a private school).

My son is now preparing to graduate high school with honors. As his mother I was his only advocate. He was just not ready and head strong to boot!

I too see the government taking children away at birth and sending them off to so called educational institutions.

By teach1

February 21, 2007 09:27 AM | Link to this

I believe all of my students the last 11 years have had kindergarten. I do not know where the info about 1/3 students have not attened K came from. A 5 year old needs to learn how to act in a school setting. I don’t think it should be mandatory but if it is not make sure the expectations for the entering grade are clear. Has anyone looked at the CRCT test for first grade? Here is one schools practice questions: http://www.henry.k12.ga.us/uge/crct04.htm look especially at the reading (none of these words can be read to the studetn) but then think about all the other concepts covered including Language Arts and sentence structure.(what kinds of words make up a sentence: noun-verb correct way to make the k sound after a short vowel)Do you think a child coming into school with no formal education, who needs to learn all there letters and sounds, all there numbers could do this test in 9 months? If K is not mandatory is this a fair test to be giving our students?

By Katie

February 21, 2007 09:39 AM | Link to this

I think it NEEDS to happen! Studies have already shown that Georgia babies will not be as succesful as babies born in other states because our school systems have been failing miserable over the years. I think it’s only fair to our children that we offer them as much education as we can and its only a responsible thing for a parent to enroll their child in Kindergarten. My son is currently in Pre-K and will be going to Kindergarten in August. They learn better at younger ages and hopefully this has given him a jump start and will help him throughout the years to not have to struggle in school. Unfortunately, the world has come to know the facts that some parents (not all now) but some, are just too lazy and could care less about their childs education or needs period. It would be nice if all parents were responsible and would worry about their childs education, but thats not the case these days. There are too many cases of child neglect and its just a fact that there are parents out there who just dont care. If it takes the government to have to step in and mandate that these kids go to school, then great. At least someone cares about those irresonsible parents children. Just my opinion.

By Oh My Goodness

February 21, 2007 09:50 AM | Link to this

Too many parents are relying and the school to teach there children everything. If they started school at 6, there is no reason for them to be ‘behind’. I had a mom tell me one time that it was the preschool’s job to teach her child about strangers, and she wasn’t going to worry about it. We as parents have a duty to teach our children, even if they are in school. My mom taught me how to read before I started 1st grade - how many parents are willing to do that though? Parents need to be more involved in the learning process.

By HS Junior

February 22, 2007 06:43 PM | Link to this

most kids start Kindergarten at age 5, but this law would take away the option of waiting to start either Kindergarten or first grade til age 6.

The problem is for the kids who, mentally or socially, are not ready for school at age 5. They do poorly in school, don’t learn what they’re supposed to, and go to readiness (or whatever it’s called). Which is basically the same thing as Kindergarten… so they’re back in Kindergarten at age 6, but they’ve already had to struggle through a year of school they weren’t ready for.

Interestingly, I turned 5 21 days after the cut-off to enter Kindergarten in 1995, and either the state or the school system refused to allow me to enter school early, so I had to wait an entire year to get into school. I was reading on a 3rd-grade level in 1995.

More rules aren’t going to help anybody.

By jim d

February 23, 2007 08:50 AM | Link to this

Katie,

I’m afraid studies can be found to say what ever it is you are a proponent of.

I could send you to links that absolutely contradict your contentions that starting at 5 is better than starting at 7-8 as some of the Scandanavian schools do.

I guess it’s just a matter of what you choose to believe.

By jim d

February 23, 2007 09:15 AM | Link to this

Teah 1,

Did you eally read all of the questions?

http://www.henry.k12.ga.us/uge/crct04.htm

Is this really what they use to test 1st graders? I mean—poorly worded questions and all?

By jim d

February 23, 2007 09:22 AM | Link to this

Teach 1

Really, some of them are about as poorly worded as my spelling. (lol)

By teach1

February 23, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

Not sure about the poorly worded part but I do know I have given comprehension practice questions to adults and they have gotten answers wrong becasue of the vagueness of the question.

Look up crct and practice questions anywhere on the net and you can find hundres of samples. This test is chanllenging for any first grader especially if they come into the classroom without any prior education.

If you are going to keep your child at home.. you must be educationg them so they will be ready to start the formail reading education in first grade. Please do look at what the state expects these littel ones to read!

By teach1

February 23, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

This is a sample story it must be read entirely by the first grader. The teacher and procter can not give any words, sounds or tips:

“Mom,” Bill said. “Can I make our lunch?” “That would be delightful,” said Bill’s mother. “I will sit at the table in case you need help.” Bill got two plates. He put a slice of bread on each plate. Then he put the cheese on the bread. “What else can we eat?” Bill asked. “Some fruit would be delicious,” his mother said. Bill thought apples tasted good, too. So he washed two apples. He put an apple on each plate. Then Bill poured milk in two glasses. And he got them each a napkin. He gave his mother a yellow napkin and he took a blue one. “Lunch is ready!” Bill said. He put the plates on the table. “This looks good, Bill!” said Bill’s mother. “You are a very good cook!” Copyright © 2001 Measured Progress. 8. Which of these things happened first? A. Bill put cheese on the bread. B. Bill poured the milk. C. Bill got two plates. 9. Which of these things happened last? A. Bill poured the milk. B. Bill’s mother sat down at the table. C. Bill got two napkins. 10. What is the story about? A. Bill makes lunch. B. Bill learns to like apples. C. Bill’s mother eats lunch. 11. At the end of the story, how does Bill most likely feel? A. proud B. sad C. full FIRST GRADE−READING (READ1_2)