How Common Core is wrecking kindergartner -- with SPECIFIC examples

[Anonymous]

Yes, and my father got into medical school without having taken any calculus. Times change.

Did he go to Med school right out of high school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

country we are never going to improve our academic standings compared to other developed democracies.

Most countries do not teach kids to read before six or seven.............it is counter productive. Why waste that time when they quickly catch up at 6 or 7 if they have been exposed to great experiences?

Could you please provide some evidence to support this statement? How do you define "most countries", and how do you define "teach kids to read"?

I'm interested in seeing this list as well.

Many people on here have compared our education system to that of Finland's where school is not compulsory until 7, but this is an apples to orange comparison. We have a totally different social makeup and social services. Those two things will heavily influence education. It really bugs me when people try to compare us to Finland, where they have one of the lowest poverty rates in the EU, have universal child allowances to children under 17, and so on. I would say the US is more on par with the UK in terms of social makeup, but even the UK has better social services than we do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm in my mid-50s and was taught with "Dick and Jane" readers -- in first grade. Today, that's an utter failure -- and yet somehow, I managed to graduate 5th in my class of more than 900 students, get a job right out of college. I've never been voluntarily unemployed. And yet somehow, my late reading instruction is a tragedy today.

Yes, and my father got into medical school without having taken any calculus. Times change.

+1 sorry, this is 2014, not 1960's. I'm in my mid 40's, and I do not want my kids to be taught the exact same way I was 40 yrs ago, or the same things.

Back in the 60's, people didn't think women could be President, serve in combat, and or do many other things. And yet, all of this has been proven to be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Could you please provide some evidence to support this statement? How do you define "most countries", and how do you define "teach kids to read"?

You are the one challenging that. Google is your friend.

NP. Disagree. When people make assertions, they should be able to provide evidence rather than just make shit up and tell people to google it.

Following that logic, I will make an assertion that most countries do teach 5/6 yr olds to read.

[Anonymous]

^^^^^
clearly you do not know how to google:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.AGES

Please show me where they teach before 6

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^^^
clearly you do not know how to google:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.AGES

Please show me where they teach before 6

That list shows the US primary age as 6. Most schools here have a cut off of 5 at the start of K, some still at 4. So I don't know how that list is compiled. And it shows that the UK starts at 5, which as I stated on here in a previous post, is the country most like our's in terms of social makeup.

[Anonymous]

That list shows the US primary age as 6. Most schools here have a cut off of 5 at the start of K, some still at 4. So I don't know how that list is compiled. And it shows that the UK starts at 5, which as I stated on here in a previous post, is the country most like our's in terms of social makeup.

Teachers in the UK are currently complaining about the instruction and complaining about teaching the kids to read too early. This cutoff is new for them.
I lived in Europe.. Kids start later than here.

[Anonymous]

That list shows the US primary age as 6. Most schools here have a cut off of 5 at the start of K, some still at 4. So I don't know how that list is compiled. And it shows that the UK starts at 5, which as I stated on here in a previous post, is the country most like our's in terms of social makeup.

Then, please find data that says otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It sounds as if you are frustrated because your son is not at the same reading level as his friend. In life there will always be someone better so now is an excellent time to teach him about doing the best he can and not focusing on others. That said, schools should demand better than average or as a country we are never going to improve our academic standings compared to other developed democracies. In contrast to the teacher who posted earlier, I think we used to expect too little of our kids academically so I am thrilled to hear we are now teaching what used to be taught in the 1st and 2nd grade. If that is the result of CC I am thrilled!

Glad you are thrilled. I am not. Can't help but think of the kids who plateau in first grade as a result of emphasis on decoding words instead of vocabulary building.

Yes--this is exactly what happened to my godson. He grew up in a very poor school district/schools where early decoding was stressed. He's now a great decoder in high school but comprehends very little about what he has just read. He's been tested and his IQ is average.

Who says it's supposed to be an either/or thing? Phonics and decoding are somewhat of a prerequisite to vocabulary building. Can't get very far on vocabulary if you don't have the building blocks involved. But then again, many schools don't do either justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, and my father got into medical school without having taken any calculus. Times change.

Did he go to Med school right out of high school?

No, he went after college. Evidently calculus was not a requirement for admission to medical school then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^^^
clearly you do not know how to google:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.AGES

Please show me where they teach before 6

All that tells us is when kids move into primary schools. There are countries such as France, where kids begin reading instruction in the maternelle, before moving to primary school, and there may well be countries who don't teach reading during the first year of primary. So a list of starting ages for primary can't be used as a proxy for a list of starting ages for reading instruction.

I know for a fact that kids start reading instruction before six in the following countries

Canada
US
UK
Australia
New Zealand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That list shows the US primary age as 6. Most schools here have a cut off of 5 at the start of K, some still at 4. So I don't know how that list is compiled. And it shows that the UK starts at 5, which as I stated on here in a previous post, is the country most like our's in terms of social makeup.

Teachers in the UK are currently complaining about the instruction and complaining about teaching the kids to read too early. This cutoff is new for them.
I lived in Europe.. Kids start later than here.

Kids in the UK start reading instruction at 4 in reception, and have for many years.

[Anonymous]

Here's the problem.

1) Many students with verbal aptitude who go on to be great readers test-wise begin reading early. For others it clicks later - some of those go on to be great readers, some of those don't. LOW SES students often don't. This last sentence is the real problem.

2) People believe that because kids who become great readers often learn early, we should teach everyone as early as possible so everyone will go on to be great readers. Problem of correlation vs causation. Great readers have verbal aptitude which means that they read early and go on to be great readers. Students for whom reading just clicks later will come, through the push of early reading, to see themselves as bad readers - they likely will learn to decode words earlier but will also hate reading and perhaps even school. Will they overcome this and go on to become great readers - who knows, they do have something else to overcome now. We've made no progress on how to help low ses students, which is the biggest problem. They may learn to decode words earlier but this doesn't mean they will become great readers 5 years later.

[Anonymous]

Again, people - the Common Core standards don't demand reading to be mastered in K. For example, the 1st Grade standard still has kids working on phonics and other basics.

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/1/

[Anonymous]

Our educational standards should not be targeted at just ESOL and low SES students. We have to make sure their needs are addressed, but there are a lot of children in the US who aren't in either of those categories and they shouldn't be held back.