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

In article <jqse84pt53o62eh89k84t8t3e4vg22dch9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Bob LeChevalier  <lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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".

Why should a child be at the same stage in all subjects?

We need to get rid of the idea of a "grade"; not just in
elementary school, but even at the graduate level.

>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.

We need to have flexibility.  One common problem of the
gifted is difficulty in writing, and I do not mean motor
control.  They are sufficiently good mental critics of
writing that they cannot turn out the "substandard" 
writing which most do, and are even encouraged at it.

>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.

This is true to some extent.  Rigid tracks are not
the answer.  However, a bright kid, given the op****tunity,
will show up, apparently to everyone except teachers, and
often even then.  Why can we not use placement tests often?

>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.

What you are saying is partially correct.  Again, forget
age and teach them as they are, allowing and encouraging
ability, instead of ANY attempt at lockstep.

>>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.

You misjudge the better tests.

>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".

At third grade, one year ahead is an IQ of 112, which 20% have.
About 5% are 2 years ahead in mental age.  The educationists 
who hold them back are responsible for at least 1-2 years of
their earning potential, as well as the harm done by dumbing
down and praising performance at the dumbed down level.  The
difference in the rate of intellectual performance is probably
much greater than that of IQ.

This harm is at least an appreciable fraction of what the
educationists are being paid.

>>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.

And the idiotic method of teaching even causes bright and
gifted children to collapse under the pressure of hiding
their abilities, destroying many minds far better than
those of the educationists.  The effect is probably greatest
in the lower socio-economic cl*****; I once asked a black
staff member at Purdue if a George Wa****ngton Carver could
come out of such a neighborhood, and his answer was a very
strong "no".

>>> 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.  

Yes, but the capacity range in a class should be narrow,
and the attitude should be to try to move up.  Instead,
the pressure is to adjust to the (often highly tyrannical)
peer group.

>>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.

Why not?  Schools should be for "book larnin'", not for
socialization.

>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.

Which is why we need private schools.  The average people
in the 19th and early 20th century had no problem in 
sup****ting better education for better students.

>>> 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.
-- 
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
hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558