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

In article <8udg845cun7po5t63gdahl75n08r694njo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Bob LeChevalier  <lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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".

"Normal" kids are not going to be anything but cogs in
improving our society.  The educationists who made the
changes in the Depression considered the schools as 
institutions for training rust belt assembly line workers,
and nothing higher.

A bright person will not last long on an assembly line, or
in any other routine situation.  This was clearly shown in
WWII, where college students volunteered for war work.  They
do very well at first, but then boredom sets in.

Do you think this does not happen in the imposed boredom in
the schools?  Children are different, and treating them all
the same causes real abuse to the ones who do not fit.  The
public schools insist on doing this to the ones who are not
fit to be drudges, but can think and not believe that there
must be a simple enactable solution.

>>>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).

Not with modern technology.

>>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.

I managed to sneak by.  My son had considerable difficulty.

>>>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.

Not with modern technology.  Stop thinking in terms of school
buildings with inmates crammed in a cell all getting the same
catechism.  Maybe we need it for some, but especially at the
lower socio-economic cl***** the homogenization keeps the
cream from rising.  Improvements will be made by the cream.

>>>>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.

No, because they have been deprived.

It is even worse because the cl***** are set for those
who should be a year behind.

			 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.

They do and they don't.  I have addressed different rates
of development in different subjects; get rid of the idea
that a child should be in the same "grade" for all subjects.

>  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.

It gets harder and harder to overcome the dumbing down,
and the refusal to allow children to think for themselves
in the academic subjects.  One cannot intelligently debate
energy policy without knowing the requisite status of our
science and engineering.


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


Are we going to treat all kids like dumbkopfs?  Bright kids
are kids, not adults, but are not the same as the "typical"
ones in anything im****tant.

>>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?

I did not say to OVERachieve, but to achieve what they could
with relative ease.  

>>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.

No, because much is not measured by IQ.  Performance in music and
art is not measured, but Mozart was not of low IQ.  The same holds
for chess and mathematics, but the correlation is strong enough.

>>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. 

I said you have to CONSIDER all possible states, not know them.
When orbit calculations are made, few of the bodies' gravitational
fields are used, while the law of gravity says all are involved.

>>>>> 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.

Some pu****ng is an excellent idea; most people do not have the
drive which is needed by all except the menial.

>>>>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".

They were before the Deepression.  Then the John Dewey school of
educationists got their agenda through, and it has survived even
the post-Sputnik attempts at reform.

>>>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.

The Founding Fathers were scared stiff of democracy, and
for excellent reason.  Why should 50.01% of the population
keep even 5% from using their resources for advancement?
If it were up to people like Al Gore, neither PCs nor the
Internet would exist.  I used the privately set up predecessors
to the Internet for years.

>>Which is why we need private schools.

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

But we are also required to sup****t the public JUNK.

>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.

No, it was universal op****tunity.  Colleges such as Cooper
Union and the once excellent New York City Colleges were for
those at the top end.  I believe in equal op****tunity, but
even here with the requirement that those who have outside
teaching should not be penalized for that.  The teachers 
used to really pick on children whose parents had taught them,
and it is still being done.

>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.

As the amount for vouchers is set at less than the
amount for public school students, I do not see this.

>"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.

Again, use technology.  Much of the cost can be eliminated,
with improved learning.  With electronic cl*****, a school
is unlikely to need to give small cl***** for small groups
of students.  
-- 
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