Re: study of red****rting (late entrance to kndergarten)

In article
<3e1b12e6-6688-473e-9726-48be3582cabe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Beliavsky says...
>
>On Jul 22, 6:07=A0pm, Chookie <ehreben...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article
>> <8b5cfd78-60fc-4886-a4f8-b55aebc0f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>
>> =A0Beliavsky <beliav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > NBER has a new study on the effects of red****rting. The abstract is
at
>> >http://papers.nber.org/papers/w14124and
the full paper at
>> >http://www.nber.org/~dynarski/Deming_Dynarski_Childhood.pdf.
Overall
>> > the authors appear negative about it:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> I'm not surprised. =A0Holding a child back in the hope that they will
cop=
>e
>> better with Kindergarten is only ever going to help a minority of
childre=
>n --
>> the ones where the problem IS immaturity, rather than an undiagnosed
lear=
>ning
>> disorder, the results of parental overindulgence or -- the most common
th=
>ing
>> -- completely normal behaviour that is viewed as pathological.
>
>Kids vary in intelligence, and some will reach a "mental age" of 6
>only at age 7, which corresponds to a ratio IQ of 86. If the first
>grade curriculum in a certain school presumes a mental age of 6, some
>6-year-olds should not be in first grade, because they are not smart
>enough yet. Perhaps they should repeat kindergarten. I'm not saying
>this is the only reason some 6-year-olds are not ready for 1st grade,
>but it is the reason for some. Of course, it's not PC to acknowledge
>differences in intelligence when setting educational policy.

What are you talking about??  There are various levels in math, in reading
especially.  There are various levels of high school courses as well.

I think a couple of things are missed by such a simplistic model as yours.
 One
is that there are *different* intelligences.  For example, some kids pick
up
verbal and language-oriented skills very quickly; others math and spatial
skills
quickly, and all combinations of those two and other talents as well
(musical,
social, athletic...).

The educational folks are realizing that and incor****ating it more and
more; the
*other* thing, though, is to recognize that development does not proceed
on this
linear scale.  Such that a 'behind' 6 year old will make an equally
'behind' 9
year old. Which is the unspoken and unexamined assumption behind
red****rting. 
That 6 year old may even surpass said 8 year old, having gone through a
cognitive developmental stage in the meantime.

It's like the more obvious different rates and patterns in physical
development.
We have an extremely athletically talented kid on our block.  Especially
his
love, baseball, but also things like football.  Chunky toddler, hulking 8
year
old.  But the coaches warned  his parents - those little shrimps he's
playing
against now - will shoot up and fill out, and some of them may be beefier,
taller, bigger shouldered, and more coordinated than he is by time they're
all
13 or 14.  And that's come true.  He's still on all the teams and really
good,
but his name doesn't appear in the local papers quite the way they did in
earlier years.

>
>> My experience has been of parents whose expectations for their
five-year-=
>old
>> boys (and it is boys in particular) are much too high. =A0Of course
they =
>don't
>> sit still at home for more than a few minutes (why should they?). =A0Of
c=
>ourse
>> they aren't reading and writing. =A0
>
>My eldest son was reading before 4, and several others in this group
>have mentioned that they or their children were reading at that age or
>earlier. Should the curriculum be set according to the median
>capacity? That of the the 25th percentile? If a child is not ready to
>learn to read, or write, or do arithmetic, I think he is not ready to
>attend school.

I'd be fine with that, actually, if it weren't for the problem that there
is no
way for many of them to be placed according to their developing abilities
further down the line.  But no, a first grader goes to second grade goes
to
third grade etc.  Unless and until that is greatly restructured, K and
other
primary grades *have to* be prepared to deal with various, and variously
changing, abilities.

Also, part of this is how the curricula and requirements are changing on
kids
and famillies - sometimes only because it's enabled by common red****rting!

Banty