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

hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>Why should a child be at the same stage in all subjects?

Habit, and the expense required to do something different, and to do
so systematically and fairly to ALL kids,

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

Ain't gonna happen.  Too much desire to define "normal" and then to
compare kids to that "normal".

>>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.

Flexibility and choice cost money.  Treating all kids alike is much
cheaper and doesn't lead to as many accusations of unfairness (which
in a litigious society is very expensive).

>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.

I was classed as gifted and that certainly doesn't describe me.  I was
probably above average as a writer, but I still have some of my first
year college essays which the professor covered in red ink.  That was
when I first started to learn to write well by adult standards.

>>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?

Cost, and insufficient capacity to deal with the results.

>>>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.

I have great doubts about the tests.  My son took far more evaluative
and diagnostic tests than most kids, and gotten such an enormous
variety of results to make me a profound skeptic (his measured reading
level stayed the same between 4th and 9th grade, but I know he was
reading much more advanced material with understanding when he was
older, but only when he was interested)

>>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.

Except that an IQ of 112 does NOT in fact mean that they are "a year
ahead" in academic achievement.  All of those other variables like
mental stimulation, attention span, fine motor skills, and
differential rates of development in different subjects, can have at
least as large an effect on achievement.

  The educationists 
>who hold them back are responsible for at least 1-2 years of
>their earning potential,

Not of concern with kids (who all reach legal adulthood at the same
age regardless of mental age - a far bigger constraint on earning
potential), especially since, as has been noted, varying rates of
child development can lead to a year or two in gain very quickly.

Our society is not going to treat kids as anything other than kids
based on an IQ test.

>as well as the harm done by dumbing down and praising performance at the
dumbed down level. 

as opposed to the harm caused by pu****ng kids to overachieve?

>The
>difference in the rate of intellectual performance is probably
>much greater than that of IQ.

Possibly, and not necessarily all that strongly correlated with IQ.

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

Not relevant.  You have to weigh the total costs of change, the
possibility of some being harmed by any given change, and the risk
that the change will not actually accomplish the goal, and not just
the cost of the status quo (which is more than mere salaries). 

I believe that you have made a similar argument regarding statistical
reasoning that you are ignoring here.  You have to know all the
possible states in order to make the sort of predictions you are
making and we don't know them. 

>>>> 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. 

Pu****ng kids forward can be just as harmful as holding kids back.

>>>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.

They aren't merely for "book larnin'", never were, and never will be.
If there was agreement that they "should be" that is probably what
they "would be".

>>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.

We have private schools.  You pay for them yourself.  That is why they
are called "private".

The public (including that below average half) isn't going to vote *to
pay* for something that is likely to handicap their kids even more
than the existing system does, and more than they are likely to vote
to implement that something.

>The average people in the 19th and early 20th century had no problem in 
>sup****ting better education for better students.

Yes they did.  Public school financing in the early 19th century was a
rather dicey prospect.  It is quite arguable that ONLY universal
public schooling created the political will for the public to pay for
that education.  Similarly, increased funding for higher education has
only come with increased rates of college attendance.

That has been one of the fears of vouchers - that if a certain
critical mass of students leave the public school system, that the
will to improve them for the other kids (or even to maintain them at
their current level) will go away.

"We're all in this together" is a great motivator for sup****ting a
high cost activity, and the costs of education are unlikely to drop.

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