PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yes this is why in some Northern European countries they don't even teach much about letters and numbers until age 6 or so. Someone once told me that countries that start teaching literacy later have fewer problems with dyslexia because children's brains are more mature and ready to handle the complex tasks involved in reading (including auditory processing).


Which Northern European countries? Could you please provide links to their pre-primary curricula?


Sorry I don't speak Danish or Swedish. Do you? You hear this stuff by talking go people. I ask because I'm interested. Look it up if you want to expand your own wisdom. And how would they study it. They don't see the need of teaching these things earlier so who would be their comparison. I had a Danish neighbor with a 3 year old visiting for a year while her husband worked at a prestigious research institute. She told me they don't teach letters or numbers till 6 or even 7. They focus on outdoor play before then. She was in fact guarding her kid against learning these things until the appropriate time. She said at 7 they learn quickly. Maybe Finland too. Norway. Some of the richest countries.


The Scandinavian countries are very obliging and put up a lot of stuff in English.

I also hear a lot of stuff by talking to people, but a lot of the stuff that I hear is not based in fact.


So when a person from Japan tells you, "In my country we leave our shoes by the door," do you ask then for research to support that? If you need research, by all means look for it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
And again -- if you make the assertion, then you should provide the supporting research. But nonetheless, here is a link to that research from New Zealand:


I look forward to seeing your research that says it is valid to require Kindergarten standards to include reading emergent texts.



I don't need research to show that it is valid. School systems are actually doing this. (For example, Montgomery County Public Schools: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/info/grading/EndOfYearReading-ParentGuide.pdf ) That's the reality.

Should they be doing this? You say no. That's why you need to provide the research to support your assertion.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yes this is why in some Northern European countries they don't even teach much about letters and numbers until age 6 or so. Someone once told me that countries that start teaching literacy later have fewer problems with dyslexia because children's brains are more mature and ready to handle the complex tasks involved in reading (including auditory processing).


Which Northern European countries? Could you please provide links to their pre-primary curricula?


Sorry I don't speak Danish or Swedish. Do you? You hear this stuff by talking go people. I ask because I'm interested. Look it up if you want to expand your own wisdom. And how would they study it. They don't see the need of teaching these things earlier so who would be their comparison. I had a Danish neighbor with a 3 year old visiting for a year while her husband worked at a prestigious research institute. She told me they don't teach letters or numbers till 6 or even 7. They focus on outdoor play before then. She was in fact guarding her kid against learning these things until the appropriate time. She said at 7 they learn quickly. Maybe Finland too. Norway. Some of the richest countries.


The Scandinavian countries are very obliging and put up a lot of stuff in English.

I also hear a lot of stuff by talking to people, but a lot of the stuff that I hear is not based in fact.


I think that "My Danish neighbor told me that in her country, they don't teach letters or numbers till 6 or even 7" is a somewhat more complicated assertion than 'In Japan, we leave shoes by the door."

So when a person from Japan tells you, "In my country we leave our shoes by the door," do you ask then for research to support that? If you need research, by all means look for it.


I think that "My Danish neighbor told me that in her country, they don't teach letters or numbers till 6 or even 7" is a somewhat more complex assertion than "My Japanese neighbor told me that in her country, they leave the shoes by the door."
Anonymous

Should they be doing this? You say no. That's why you need to provide the research to support your assertion.


Research has been presented that indicates it is not worthwhile or advantageous.
You need to present research that says it is.






Anonymous

I think that "My Danish neighbor told me that in her country, they don't teach letters or numbers till 6 or even 7" is a somewhat more complex assertion than "My Japanese neighbor told me that in her country, they leave the shoes by the door."


Not PP. But I lived in Germany. They don't teach kids to read until 6 or 7.





Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:

Should they be doing this? You say no. That's why you need to provide the research to support your assertion.


Research has been presented that indicates it is not worthwhile or advantageous.
You need to present research that says it is.


No, I don't. I'm going with the status quo. You want to change the status quo.
Anonymous

No, I don't. I'm going with the status quo. You want to change the status quo.


Actually, the status quo has only changed in the last few years. Why? No research to support it that I have seen.




Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:

I think that "My Danish neighbor told me that in her country, they don't teach letters or numbers till 6 or even 7" is a somewhat more complex assertion than "My Japanese neighbor told me that in her country, they leave the shoes by the door."


Not PP. But I lived in Germany. They don't teach kids to read until 6 or 7.


It's a mistake to assume that children get no reading instruction until they enter first grade.

http://www.dw.de/germany-to-reform-pre-school-education/a-1690133

Plus, so what? Another thing they do in Germany (especially former West Germany) is finish the school day by lunchtime. If Germany does it that way, does that mean the US should do it that way too?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:

No, I don't. I'm going with the status quo. You want to change the status quo.


Actually, the status quo has only changed in the last few years. Why? No research to support it that I have seen.


Whenever it changed, and for whatever reason, that fact is that it is the status quo.
Anonymous

Whenever it changed, and for whatever reason, that fact is that it is the status quo.


Great justification!




Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:

Whenever it changed, and for whatever reason, that fact is that it is the status quo.


Great justification!



It's not intended as justification. It's the reality. If you want to change the status quo -- that's what you need to justify.
Anonymous
But no one needs to justify it TO YOU, PP. If you want information, look it up.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:

I think that "My Danish neighbor told me that in her country, they don't teach letters or numbers till 6 or even 7" is a somewhat more complex assertion than "My Japanese neighbor told me that in her country, they leave the shoes by the door."


Not PP. But I lived in Germany. They don't teach kids to read until 6 or 7.

Please post research to support your experience. ; )





Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Whenever it changed, and for whatever reason, that fact is that it is the status quo.


Great justification!



It's not intended as justification. It's the reality. If you want to change the status quo -- that's what you need to justify.


Are you a lobbyist for the that NGO named Support the Status Quo? If not, you should consider applying. I hear they have an endless number of initiatives in many areas.
Anonymous

Are you a lobbyist for the that NGO named Support the Status Quo? If not, you should consider applying. I hear they have an endless number of initiatives in many areas.


LOL!

The PP demands research from everyone who challenges her--yet she provides none that does not come from the Common Core website. Oh, yes, and that 2008 article from WAPO that says that 90%+ K's are reading emergent texts. Common Core is wonderful because the website says so. It's just the teachers' fault. And, don't forget, PARCC is the fault of the states that purchased it!

However, because she likes CC better than the prior standards in MCPS, it's great.

I really do think she is some kind of lobbyist or employee.




post reply Forum Index » Schools and Education General Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: