MD/DC Schools not good enough

[Anonymous]

I gotta say, OP sounds neurotic at best, stupid at worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How on earth do you homeschool a 4 year old??? That is just keeping them home and teaching them stuff... not school. At this age it is about socialization, peer and adult negotiation. You can keep on "homeschooling" as you call it for preK/K, and just do activities. Also, think of why your kid was not accepted into that school - maybe the social skills were not there...

preschool is NOT about the academics!!

All good points. A very bright young girl in our nabe was not accepted anywhere for K. Alas, she has horrible social skills and probably needs some help. Fortunately, her parents are not solely focused on her intelligence but wholly on her overall development.

Moreover, early reading is a predictor of....nothing. I don't think kids should be bored, but I think parents are deluding themselves when they believe they've given birth to Einstein.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All good points. A very bright young girl in our nabe was not accepted anywhere for K. Alas, she has horrible social skills and probably needs some help. Fortunately, her parents are not solely focused on her intelligence but wholly on her overall development.

Moreover, early reading is a predictor of....nothing. I don't think kids should be bored, but I think parents are deluding themselves when they believe they've given birth to Einstein.

Not true. You risk your credibility when you overstate your case.

The Importance of READING- What National Research Shows:

*Reading serves as the major foundational skill for all school-based learning.
*Although reading and writing abilities continue to develop throughout life, the early childhood years - from birth through age eight - are the most important period for literacy development.
*The development of early literacy skills through early experiences with books and stories is critically linked to a child's success in learning to read.
*Only 5% of children learn to read effortlessly.
*20% - 30% of children learn to read relatively easily once exposed to formal instruction.
*60% of children face a more formidable challenge:
oFor 20% to 30% of these children, reading is one of the most difficult tasks they will have to master throughout their schooling.
o90% to 95% of poor readers can greatly increase reading skills to average reading levels through prevention and early intervention programs that combine: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency development, and reading comprehension strategies that are provided by well-trained teachers.
o88% of poor readers in first grade have the probability of being poor readers in fourth grade.
o75% of children who are poor readers, who are not helped prior to age nine, will continue to have reading difficulties through high school. 10% to 15% of children who have difficulties learning to read will drop out of school; only 2% complete a four-year college program.
oWhile older children and adults can be taught to read, the time and expense is enormous.
*80% of children identified as having learning disabilities have their primary difficulties in learning to read.
*Half of adolescents and young adults with criminal records have reading difficulties.
*Half of the youths with histories of substance abuse have reading problems.

[Anonymous]

I don't think most of this has any relevance to the question of how much it matters if a child learns to read at, say, 3 as opposed to 5, which is presumably what 16:20 had in mind.

[Anonymous]

18:34-- that was very informative. Would you mind citing your research findings. Not a challenge, just curious. I would like to learn more! Thanks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:18:34-- that was very informative. Would you mind citing your research findings. Not a challenge, just curious. I would like to learn more! Thanks

No problem. I've seen these figures summarized in more than one place. Here's one of them:

http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-5233-23207--,00.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think most of this has any relevance to the question of how much it matters if a child learns to read at, say, 3 as opposed to 5, which is presumably what 16:20 had in mind.

You said it well.

[Anonymous]

PP 18:34 again. Here's another:

Nearly 40% of Fourth Graders have not mastered basic reading skills. It's nearly 60% in California, and almost half of these children live with college-educated parents. Source: -- Council for Basic Education If a child is a poor reader at the end of First Grade there is a nearly 90% probability that the child will remain a poor reader at the end of Fourth Grade. Source: -- The Public Library Association Experts say about 5% of the nation's children learn to read with ease, almost intuitively. An additional 20% to 30% learn to read with relative ease once they enter school and begin formal instruction. However, the bulk of children (about 60%) have difficulty. Source: -- Council for Basic Education Hard-to-Believe Learning-to-Read Myths.

More here:

http://www.edarticle.com/k-12-subject-areas/reading/learn-to-read-%231-facts-and-myths-for-parents.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think most of this has any relevance to the question of how much it matters if a child learns to read at, say, 3 as opposed to 5, which is presumably what 16:20 had in mind.

Thank you. Perhaps 18:34 needs to brush up on reading comprehension. This thread started with someone who believed that her 4 y.o. child was not going to be sufficiently challenged in school because she was reading and her prospective classmates were not.

My point was that reading early, e.g., at 3 or 4, is not a predictor of anything. I looked into this when our daughter began reading at nearly 4. I fretted that maybe I should be doing something, anything, that perhaps this was an indicator of some import. Through convos with reading specialists and doing a little research, I basically discovered that it was great that she was reading, but it didn't mean she was genius or even necessarily gifted. Ha, she doesn't even really likes books, she simply learned to read at any early age. I am grateful she cleared this hurdle early, but not deluded that she is now a shoo-in for all G&T programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was also the irony that OP was complaining/concerned about school quality, but then her post was just riddled with typos and grammatical issues. If the post was about anything else, we'd probably be more likely to overlook the typos, etc.

TOTALLY agree.

Oh no. IF indeed OP has issues with grammar, then does that meant that she can not evaluate a school's quality, or that she should not be looking for a quality school for her child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think most of this has any relevance to the question of how much it matters if a child learns to read at, say, 3 as opposed to 5, which is presumably what 16:20 had in mind.

Thank you. Perhaps 18:34 needs to brush up on reading comprehension. This thread started with someone who believed that her 4 y.o. child was not going to be sufficiently challenged in school because she was reading and her prospective classmates were not.

MEANIE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I gotta say, OP sounds neurotic at best, stupid at worst.

I am on a rampage tonight. WHY would you write something like this? It is soooooo unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think most of this has any relevance to the question of how much it matters if a child learns to read at, say, 3 as opposed to 5, which is presumably what 16:20 had in mind.

Thank you. Perhaps 18:34 needs to brush up on reading comprehension. This thread started with someone who believed that her 4 y.o. child was not going to be sufficiently challenged in school because she was reading and her prospective classmates were not.

My point was that reading early, e.g., at 3 or 4, is not a predictor of anything. I looked into this when our daughter began reading at nearly 4. I fretted that maybe I should be doing something, anything, that perhaps this was an indicator of some import. Through convos with reading specialists and doing a little research, I basically discovered that it was great that she was reading, but it didn't mean she was genius or even necessarily gifted. Ha, she doesn't even really likes books, she simply learned to read at any early age. I am grateful she cleared this hurdle early, but not deluded that she is now a shoo-in for all G&T programs.

I'm the PP, and my reading comprehension is just fine, you arrogant dolt. You overstated your case and I felt like it was not helpful. In that spirit, I provided information about early reading (a genuine interest of mine) for general consumption. Given that someone asked me a follow-up question, (which, btw proves me right) I elaborated. I'm just as entitled to comment on this thread as you are - you have no ownership of where the conversation is allowed to go. If you don't like it, don't read it. For you to have the arrogance to assume your opinions and statements are worthwhile and someone else's are not is, shall we say, presumptuous?

[Anonymous]

pp, thanks for the articles about the reading issues. There is a strange anger on this thread, and I don't get it. I think there was a term used by OP, home school, that pissed a lot of people off. I am guessing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think most of this has any relevance to the question of how much it matters if a child learns to read at, say, 3 as opposed to 5, which is presumably what 16:20 had in mind.

Thank you. Perhaps 18:34 needs to brush up on reading comprehension. This thread started with someone who believed that her 4 y.o. child was not going to be sufficiently challenged in school because she was reading and her prospective classmates were not.

My point was that reading early, e.g., at 3 or 4, is not a predictor of anything. I looked into this when our daughter began reading at nearly 4. I fretted that maybe I should be doing something, anything, that perhaps this was an indicator of some import. Through convos with reading specialists and doing a little research, I basically discovered that it was great that she was reading, but it didn't mean she was genius or even necessarily gifted. Ha, she doesn't even really likes books, she simply learned to read at any early age. I am grateful she cleared this hurdle early, but not deluded that she is now a shoo-in for all G&T programs.

I'm the PP, and my reading comprehension is just fine, you arrogant dolt. You overstated your case and I felt like it was not helpful. In that spirit, I provided information about early reading (a genuine interest of mine) for general consumption. Given that someone asked me a follow-up question, (which, btw proves me right) I elaborated. I'm just as entitled to comment on this thread as you are - you have no ownership of where the conversation is allowed to go. If you don't like it, don't read it. For you to have the arrogance to assume your opinions and statements are worthwhile and someone else's are not is, shall we say, presumptuous?

Can you please explain how I overstated the case? The cites you listed bear no relationship to my point. Two other posters also indicated that they believe you missed my point. Did you miss their comments?

Any early primary teacher will tell you that a child reading at 3 or 4 will probably still benefit from classroom instruction from PreK onwards to ensure that they've mastered the fundamentals of reading. An early reader - I am defining early reader as 3 or 4, not 5 or 6 as you are based on your cites (I visited a number of private schools beginning in Sept '09 and ALL of them indicated that some children start first grade w/o yet having mastered reading) -- may be engaging in sight memorization and had not yet mastered phonics, etc. Thus, someone who is reading by sight may still not be comprehending the intent and by second or third grade can start to lag behind classmates who did not begin reading till K or later. To be perfectly blunt, most of these teachers did a fabulous job in not rolling their eyes when the nth parent on the tour wondered aloud about how s/he was concerned that her/his DC would not be sufficiently challenged because the reading lessons were too basic for her/his DC.

I apologize for impugning your reading comprehension abilities. I don't apologize for clarifying that a child who reads at 3 or 4 can still benefit from classroom instruction with their immediate peers who are not yet readers. A child who does not read by the beginning of first grade may close the gap with an early reader within weeks after the former starts reading. Let's have a more open conversation here and not scare parents into thinking that if Johnny is not reading by 5, then he'll be doing 8-10 by the time he is 15.