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

Beliavsky <beliavsky@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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.

The problem with the "mental age" view of IQ is that it doesn't
accurately describe kids skills.  A kid might be way ahead of his age
level in reading ability (I apparently tested at the 6th grade level
at age 4, but my IQ certainly isn't 250), but not be quite so good at
math, or his writing might be subpar because his fine motor skills are
delayed.  There might also be illiterates who are math savants.  An
especial interest in a subject is probably good for a couple of years
of "natural ability".

Sometimes a kid might have an above average mental acuity, but have
little attention span UNLESS it is a subject that especially interests
him (something seen in ADHD kids), and the teaching at a certain grade
level is predicated on sufficient attention span.

A bright kid who has had little intellectual stimulation in pre-K
might show up as being backwards compared to a less bright kid who had
a lot of stimulation.

And all this ignores the problem of ESL kids, who are usually "behind"
regardless of their intelligence.  In counties like mine where a high
percentage of the kids aren't native English speakers, IQ probably
isn't well measured, and would be misleading even if it were
accurately measured.

>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.

I don't think we have measurement skills accurate enough to judge.
There is a reason why GT programs tend to not kick in until 3rd or 4th
grade, and then only for kids much higher than 1 year ahead in "mental
age".

>Of course, it's not PC to acknowledge
>differences in intelligence when setting educational policy.

Because differences in raw intelligence do not necessarily lead to
differences in academic achievement.

>> My experience has been of parents whose expectations for their
five-year-old
>> boys (and it is boys in particular) are much too high.  Of course they
don't
>> sit still at home for more than a few minutes (why should they?).  Of
course
>> they aren't reading and writing.  
>
>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?

Yes.  

>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.

Not acceptable.

The bottom line is that half the people in the country have below
average intelligence, but they still get to vote, and they aren't
going to vote for something that is likely to handicap their kids even
more than the existing system does.

>> So what?  Our public schools, at least, are
>> prepared for normal kids.  In fact, they are prepared for children who
can't
>> speak any English, or who have learning disabilities.  Middle-class
parents
>> seem to have some very strange ideas about what children do in
Kindergarten!

It used to be that kindergarten was non-academic.  But that seems to
have gone by the wayside, in the interest of ever higher test scores.

lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Lojban language www.lojban.org