One thing to know about kindergarten

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid learned a ton in a title 8 dcps last year, including how to read well, speak and understand spanish, math including basic alegbra, etc. it is a very academic school, and i have sime misgivings about that even though she has been in full day day are since 5 mos. A lot of worksheets and homework. But she had good teachers (after we switched early in the yr). Im watching closely to make sure she enjoys first grade, otherwise I'll be in favor of moving (and private by middle school). Seems like kindergarten varies widely even in our school system.

Your child learned basic algebra in kindergarten?

You and I must have very different definitions of algebra.

[Anonymous]

Yes and most of it revolves around being able to sit still and be bored out of her mind. I'm not trying to be funny but it's actually a skill. I've had two go through this and one did great and was very happy. The other couldn't stand it and acted out but was fine by 1st grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think many of us know that, and we know that there are social benefits to K. That being said, yes it is frustrating to think that my kid who not only knew the alphabet by age 2, reads at a first grade level, and has been in childcare his whole life and therefore knows the basics of circle time, etc... has to essentially put up and shut up for large portions of his day for at least the first quarter of the school year. Yes I know it, but doesn't mean I have to like the fact that large parts of his time will be review rather than gaining knowledge.

According to our school the K teachers send home a weekly or bi-weekly update newsletter so I won't have to rely on him to tell me.

I guarantee that even your kindergartener, who knew the alphabet by age 2, reads at a first-grade level, and knows the basics of circle time etc., will learn plenty in kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think many of us know that, and we know that there are social benefits to K. That being said, yes it is frustrating to think that my kid who not only knew the alphabet by age 2, reads at a first grade level, and has been in childcare his whole life and therefore knows the basics of circle time, etc... has to essentially put up and shut up for large portions of his day for at least the first quarter of the school year. Yes I know it, but doesn't mean I have to like the fact that large parts of his time will be review rather than gaining knowledge.

For your child's sake I hope you are trolling here. What precisely is the detriment to your child having to "review" letters, numbers, basic math and reading, at the ripe old age of 5yo? Is this holding back his application to Harvard?

I'm not trolling, TBH. And I expect fully to get slammed as you and the next poster already have. Thing is, I don't think it's unreasonable to want my child to learn. Whether he ends up at Harvard or the local community college, my point is that one of the huge challenges of public school is that the teacher does need to bring all kids to the same baseline which means unfortunately that some kids have to simply tread water while they wait for classmates to catch up. In other words, some kids are learning while some are simply waiting.

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and he'll be challenged, but other threads over the years have indicated that I shouldn't expect that. I'm not sure why it's unreasonable to hope that your child will be learning.

I feel the same way. My child will be 6 two weeks after starting K. He had a year of an academic preschool with most of what is being learned in K except they did a very stretched out pre-reading and writing program. My kid was reading and much more. We do supplement at home as the speed of the classes are dull. The homework was a joke and took 20 minutes where other kids struggled for an hour or two, if not more. I sent in workbooks more his level which went unused. We are doing 1st grade workbooks comfortably at home this summer. Yes, part of K. is social, but I send my kid to learn, not to play. He can play at home. My kid will be in a holding pattern for another year while his peers catch up. His teachers don't even fully realize how much he knows as he dumbs down as people get uncomfortable with it. He'll tell them I don't know when he clearly knows and they do not pick up on his cues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think many of us know that, and we know that there are social benefits to K. That being said, yes it is frustrating to think that my kid who not only knew the alphabet by age 2, reads at a first grade level, and has been in childcare his whole life and therefore knows the basics of circle time, etc... has to essentially put up and shut up for large portions of his day for at least the first quarter of the school year. Yes I know it, but doesn't mean I have to like the fact that large parts of his time will be review rather than gaining knowledge.

For your child's sake I hope you are trolling here. What precisely is the detriment to your child having to "review" letters, numbers, basic math and reading, at the ripe old age of 5yo? Is this holding back his application to Harvard?

I'm not trolling, TBH. And I expect fully to get slammed as you and the next poster already have. Thing is, I don't think it's unreasonable to want my child to learn. Whether he ends up at Harvard or the local community college, my point is that one of the huge challenges of public school is that the teacher does need to bring all kids to the same baseline which means unfortunately that some kids have to simply tread water while they wait for classmates to catch up. In other words, some kids are learning while some are simply waiting.

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and he'll be challenged, but other threads over the years have indicated that I shouldn't expect that. I'm not sure why it's unreasonable to hope that your child will be learning.

NP here. I get what you are saying and have thought similar things. But I think you are taking a really narrow-minded approach to education, seeing it purely in terms of book knowledge. There is so much more for kids to learn about the world, including how to communicate (something that many of us 30 and 40 year olds still don't have down), how to be assertive, how to listen, how to teach (yes, your advanced kid will be teaching the kids who are learning their letters, etc), and how to play (which teaches a million skills related to creativity, imagination, storytelling, language, etc). So while I do get what you're saying, I think your attitude toward what the world has to offer and what your child can learn is pitifully small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not trolling, TBH. And I expect fully to get slammed as you and the next poster already have. Thing is, I don't think it's unreasonable to want my child to learn. Whether he ends up at Harvard or the local community college, my point is that one of the huge challenges of public school is that the teacher does need to bring all kids to the same baseline which means unfortunately that some kids have to simply tread water while they wait for classmates to catch up. In other words, some kids are learning while some are simply waiting.

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and he'll be challenged, but other threads over the years have indicated that I shouldn't expect that. I'm not sure why it's unreasonable to hope that your child will be learning.

Almost everybody wants their children to learn.

Learning includes non-academic knowledge, experience, and skills -- don't you agree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not trolling, TBH. And I expect fully to get slammed as you and the next poster already have. Thing is, I don't think it's unreasonable to want my child to learn. Whether he ends up at Harvard or the local community college, my point is that one of the huge challenges of public school is that the teacher does need to bring all kids to the same baseline which means unfortunately that some kids have to simply tread water while they wait for classmates to catch up. In other words, some kids are learning while some are simply waiting.

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and he'll be challenged, but other threads over the years have indicated that I shouldn't expect that. I'm not sure why it's unreasonable to hope that your child will be learning.

Almost everybody wants their children to learn.

Learning includes non-academic knowledge, experience, and skills -- don't you agree?

Absolutely. But he can do that at home, no reason to have to sit in a classroom for 6-1/2hrs a day to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Almost everybody wants their children to learn.

Learning includes non-academic knowledge, experience, and skills -- don't you agree?

Absolutely. But he can do that at home, no reason to have to sit in a classroom for 6-1/2hrs a day to do that.

If that is your belief, then I recommend home-schooling, if you can make it work for you. I mean that with all sincerity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not trolling, TBH. And I expect fully to get slammed as you and the next poster already have. Thing is, I don't think it's unreasonable to want my child to learn. Whether he ends up at Harvard or the local community college, my point is that one of the huge challenges of public school is that the teacher does need to bring all kids to the same baseline which means unfortunately that some kids have to simply tread water while they wait for classmates to catch up. In other words, some kids are learning while some are simply waiting.

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and he'll be challenged, but other threads over the years have indicated that I shouldn't expect that. I'm not sure why it's unreasonable to hope that your child will be learning.

Almost everybody wants their children to learn.

Learning includes non-academic knowledge, experience, and skills -- don't you agree?

Yes but you're taking about the non-quantifable aspects of learning which happen right from preschool through to college. If there is literally nothing else going on in the classroom then its counter productive to the kid who academically is ahead, and is not being stimulated academically. Its simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Almost everybody wants their children to learn.

Learning includes non-academic knowledge, experience, and skills -- don't you agree?

Absolutely. But he can do that at home, no reason to have to sit in a classroom for 6-1/2hrs a day to do that.

If that is your belief, then I recommend home-schooling, if you can make it work for you. I mean that with all sincerity.

Unfortunately we can't. Will be giving public school a shot, and see how it goes. If it's a match made in heaven for him, then public it is. If not, private is in our future.

I don't think my child is a special snowflake. I don't think your's is either. I just find it unacceptable that it's become acceptable to say simply that some kids will be stuck in review-mode for the better part of a year. I find it unacceptable that I spend my tax dollars and send my child to school expecting him to learn and am told that I'm setting the bar too high and should homeschool. Academic learning. Readin', writin', 'rithmetic. It shouldn't be okay with any of us.

I'm not saying it's the fault of the teachers. They work hard, and work with what they're given. But our system is seriously flawed and broken, and I am truly and probably naively bothered that I'm being told that my child will just have to be patient while the teacher focuses on teaching a chunk of the class the alphabet and how to sit quietly for storytime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Almost everybody wants their children to learn.

Learning includes non-academic knowledge, experience, and skills -- don't you agree?

Absolutely. But he can do that at home, no reason to have to sit in a classroom for 6-1/2hrs a day to do that.

If that is your belief, then I recommend home-schooling, if you can make it work for you. I mean that with all sincerity.

Co-signed.

I think that more families on this board would be better off homeschooling their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Unfortunately we can't. Will be giving public school a shot, and see how it goes. If it's a match made in heaven for him, then public it is. If not, private is in our future.

I don't think my child is a special snowflake. I don't think your's is either. I just find it unacceptable that it's become acceptable to say simply that some kids will be stuck in review-mode for the better part of a year. I find it unacceptable that I spend my tax dollars and send my child to school expecting him to learn and am told that I'm setting the bar too high and should homeschool. Academic learning. Readin', writin', 'rithmetic. It shouldn't be okay with any of us.

I'm not saying it's the fault of the teachers. They work hard, and work with what they're given. But our system is seriously flawed and broken, and I am truly and probably naively bothered that I'm being told that my child will just have to be patient while the teacher focuses on teaching a chunk of the class the alphabet and how to sit quietly for storytime.

Let me clarify. I didn't recommend that you homeschool because you're setting the academic bar too high. I recommended that you homeschool because you don't value the part of public education that involves learning to live with other people in a society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Almost everybody wants their children to learn.

Learning includes non-academic knowledge, experience, and skills -- don't you agree?

Absolutely. But he can do that at home, no reason to have to sit in a classroom for 6-1/2hrs a day to do that.

If that is your belief, then I recommend home-schooling, if you can make it work for you. I mean that with all sincerity.

Unfortunately we can't. Will be giving public school a shot, and see how it goes. If it's a match made in heaven for him, then public it is. If not, private is in our future.

I don't think my child is a special snowflake. I don't think your's is either. I just find it unacceptable that it's become acceptable to say simply that some kids will be stuck in review-mode for the better part of a year. I find it unacceptable that I spend my tax dollars and send my child to school expecting him to learn and am told that I'm setting the bar too high and should homeschool. Academic learning. Readin', writin', 'rithmetic. It shouldn't be okay with any of us.

I'm not saying it's the fault of the teachers. They work hard, and work with what they're given. But our system is seriously flawed and broken, and I am truly and probably naively bothered that I'm being told that my child will just have to be patient while the teacher focuses on teaching a chunk of the class the alphabet and how to sit quietly for storytime.

Our child's knowledge is from us homeschooling. I think there is merit to school but having a child teach other kids, relearn ABC's and basic basic math is counterproductive for many kids. Most of these kids could do more if the parents were invested in working with them at home but the logic now is it is the school's job and why should they. We are at a small private and the class size is much better, good academics but still way to slow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think many of us know that, and we know that there are social benefits to K. That being said, yes it is frustrating to think that my kid who not only knew the alphabet by age 2, reads at a first grade level, and has been in childcare his whole life and therefore knows the basics of circle time, etc... has to essentially put up and shut up for large portions of his day for at least the first quarter of the school year. Yes I know it, but doesn't mean I have to like the fact that large parts of his time will be review rather than gaining knowledge.

For your child's sake I hope you are trolling here. What precisely is the detriment to your child having to "review" letters, numbers, basic math and reading, at the ripe old age of 5yo? Is this holding back his application to Harvard?

I'm not trolling, TBH. And I expect fully to get slammed as you and the next poster already have. Thing is, I don't think it's unreasonable to want my child to learn. Whether he ends up at Harvard or the local community college, my point is that one of the huge challenges of public school is that the teacher does need to bring all kids to the same baseline which means unfortunately that some kids have to simply tread water while they wait for classmates to catch up. In other words, some kids are learning while some are simply waiting.

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and he'll be challenged, but other threads over the years have indicated that I shouldn't expect that. I'm not sure why it's unreasonable to hope that your child will be learning.

It's not unreasonable to want your child to be learning. It's unreasonable to think you are superior to the entire public educational system and your child's teacher and that your child is not learning unless he or she is doing exactly what you, whose vast expertise and work experience is almost surely not in the area of early child development, should determine what your child is learning and how and with whom and when and in what order, etc ad infinitum.

Unless of course you want to home school.

But please, go ahead, keep proving the OP's point. Whining that the curriculum is insufficient and the great unwashed masses in his public school classroom are dragging him down even before your kid starts K - you're definitely going to smug insufferable parent of the year.

(Slow clapping)

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think many of us know that, and we know that there are social benefits to K. That being said, yes it is frustrating to think that my kid who not only knew the alphabet by age 2, reads at a first grade level, and has been in childcare his whole life and therefore knows the basics of circle time, etc... has to essentially put up and shut up for large portions of his day for at least the first quarter of the school year. Yes I know it, but doesn't mean I have to like the fact that large parts of his time will be review rather than gaining knowledge.

According to our school the K teachers send home a weekly or bi-weekly update newsletter so I won't have to rely on him to tell me.

I guarantee that even your kindergartener, who knew the alphabet by age 2, reads at a first-grade level, and knows the basics of circle time etc., will learn plenty in kindergarten.

Like what, specifically? My DD said she loved K because she never had to do any real "work" it was all just fun and games. And yes, she was reading and writing before she got there. Her numbers weren't up to 100 yet, and she did learn some math, I concede that, but otherwise, no a lot happened for her in academic terms. In social terms she had already had 3 years of preschool so socially she was already in full swing.

When she went into a private school for 1st grade they realized very quickly that she was too advanced for the class and they put her into 2nd grade where she finally hit her stride academically.

Unfortunately you can't just trot out that everyone learns something unless you have a full account of everyone's experience. And not everyone learns much in K, indeed for many its a total fucking waste of time.

Do you not realize how ridiculous this sounds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes and most of it revolves around being able to sit still and be bored out of her mind. I'm not trying to be funny but it's actually a skill. I've had two go through this and one did great and was very happy. The other couldn't stand it and acted out but was fine by 1st grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think many of us know that, and we know that there are social benefits to K. That being said, yes it is frustrating to think that my kid who not only knew the alphabet by age 2, reads at a first grade level, and has been in childcare his whole life and therefore knows the basics of circle time, etc... has to essentially put up and shut up for large portions of his day for at least the first quarter of the school year. Yes I know it, but doesn't mean I have to like the fact that large parts of his time will be review rather than gaining knowledge.

According to our school the K teachers send home a weekly or bi-weekly update newsletter so I won't have to rely on him to tell me.

I guarantee that even your kindergartener, who knew the alphabet by age 2, reads at a first-grade level, and knows the basics of circle time etc., will learn plenty in kindergarten.

Agree with this. Not only is patience an important life skill, but boredom fosters creativity. We as a society have developed an expectation of being constantly occupied and constantly stimulated. All the while, it hinders our creative capacity. Article after article has been written about this. Developing and challenging a child's mind doesn't just happen because you quiz her and push worksheets in front of her. Maybe a K student can recite words at a second grade level, but how is her reading comprehension? Does she understand what she's reading, and can she draft her own stories using a well-exercised imagination?

Also, even kids who have been in group childcare settings benefit from the social dynamics of K. Kids haven't learned all there is to know about relationships and getting along with others by K, just because they went to daycare and preschool. It's important for them to learn to navigate new situations, including how to get along with children who have different backgrounds and temperaments.