Actually, now that you mention it, from the article "Kindergarten students are being forced to write words, sentences, and paragraphs before having a grasp of oral language...."

I don't get it. I thought oral language means speaking. Kindergarten students are being forced to write words, sentences, and paragraphs before they can talk? Before they understand how to talk? What does this mean?

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Here is the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/08/02/the-disturbing-shift-underway-in-early-childhood-classrooms/

This article doesn't really resonate with me. They surveyed a small sample of teachers who went to their specific website. I'm not sure how you can extrapolate much info from that data.

And this quote:
"Kindergarten students are being forced to write words, sentences, and paragraphs before having a grasp of oral language...We are assessing them WEEKLY on how many sight words, letter sounds, and letter names they can identify. And we're assessing the 'neediest' students' reading every other day."

My DS enters MoCo public kindergarten in a few weeks. He goes to a part-time, play based preschool. ALL of the kids in his class know their letters, letter sounds, and a good amount of sight words. Most of them read. I don't see how 'assessing' them weekly is a bad thing. As a parent, I'd like to know what my 5 year old needs to be learning. And, like I said, he IS at a play-based preschool, so there are no worksheets/flash cards.

Expectations that your kindergartener is learning how to write and read are not unreasonable, IMO. And yes, assessing the 'neediest' more often also makes sense to me. To ensure that they are making progress.

The standards are rigorous. Unfortunately, they are only as rigorous as the teacher is good!

I remember my cousin (born and raised most of her life in Italy) telling me about their school day. They spent quite a bit of time on a Shakespearean play - reading, analysis, presentations - with their only assignment being to review what they studied in class. She is in the States now and probably knows more about Shakespeare than most of my friends do.

It's the old depth versus coverage conflict. 2.0 focuses on depth. But if you're afraid of digging deep as a teacher and don't have the skills to backmap and treat lessons as you would peel an onion, 2.0 can be quite challenging. It's IB for little ones!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is highly academic now, especially with the implementation of Curriculum 2.0.

I think it's interesting that you say that, given that the conventional wisdom of DCUM about Curriculum 2.0 is that it's academic cocoa puffs and that everybody's children learned nothing, not one single measly thing, all year.

(For what it's worth, my experience of Curriculum 2.0 has been very positive.)

Anonymous wrote:
It is highly academic now, especially with the implementation of Curriculum 2.0.

I think it's interesting that you say that, given that the conventional wisdom of DCUM about Curriculum 2.0 is that it's academic cocoa puffs and that everybody's children learned nothing, not one single measly thing, all year.

(For what it's worth, my experience of Curriculum 2.0 has been very positive.)

Anonymous wrote:We chose not to send out child to RH for this reason. We were very worried that our child would be turned off by school and learning if he was put in an environment where he was expected to sit still and do worksheets with only one 30 minute recess/day vs. learn though hands-on projects and play. We have friends at RH whose kids start hating school in K and we have friends whose kids have thrived in this type of environment. It's important to know what kind of child you have and what will and won't work for him/her.

Agree with this. We aren't in this cluster, but I felt the same way about kindergarten in our area. I have a very active, curious boy who loves to learn. But the worksheet drill and kill would have killed his desire for school. This was a few years ago, so I don't know how 2.0 has changed things.

However, his private school has two recesses a day, plus P.E. a few times a week. They get outside to learn, and have lots of movement and hands on learning around the classroom. He needs that much physical activity to learn well. Public didn't offer that. We take each year one at a time, and may very well move him back to public. Maybe in 3rd grade.

We chose not to send out child to RH for this reason. We were very worried that our child would be turned off by school and learning if he was put in an environment where he was expected to sit still and do worksheets with only one 30 minute recess/day vs. learn though hands-on projects and play. We have friends at RH whose kids start hating school in K and we have friends whose kids have thrived in this type of environment. It's important to know what kind of child you have and what will and won't work for him/her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K teacher here. We have play based centers daily for 20 minutes.

So sad.

Why? Not every kid needs more than this. If you want something else for your child I'm sure you can find it.

Anonymous wrote:K teacher here. We have play based centers daily for 20 minutes.

So sad.

Our kids have enjoyed Rosemary Hills, and look forward to going to school, so I wouldn't worry about them being "hounded". It certainly hasn't diminished their creativity - truth be told, my kids would probably benefit from more rigor and less creativity. but then they might not be as much fun...

Years ago (and still in many, many private schools), K was half-day, play-based - with the goal of "socializing" kids and getting them acclimated to a school environment.

It is highly academic now, especially with the implementation of Curriculum 2.0.

Having said that, however, I don't know if you can fight it - or if you'd want to fight it if this is where we're headed.

Personally, I like 2.0 and having worked with the Common Core at the secondary level, I appreciate how rigor is built into these standards. They are indeed complex and comprehensive - with a focus on critical thinking, as the curriculum tends to backmap from IB.

Now, that does mean that K is much more rigorous than it was in the past. But a good teacher can always make learning fun. And much of 2.0 includes discourse, which often translates into structured, truly collaborative group work.

Again, it's how the teacher approaches 2.0 and scaffolds lessons to meet the needs of his/her students.

19:13's comments seem a bit outdated. Curriculum 2.0 does not emphasize the use of worksheets. It emphasizes problem solving.

K teacher here. We have play based centers daily for 20 minutes.

Expect a lot of worksheets and not much play time. At least that's been our experience at 2 different elementary schools. Not sure about Rosemary Hills, but from what I can tell, there's just not much play based learning in MCPS. The kindergarten classroom will have some toys in it, but don't count on there being much free time for play, or even structured play time.

Art and music are typically one day a week each.

I have a big problem with the authors concluding "The 185 teachers who responded to this survey are the canaries in the coal mine and we should pay attention to what they are saying.", when it was "an online survey" where "185 early childhood classroom teachers (Pre-K – 3rd Grade) from across 31 states voluntarily came to our website to document their experiences". This kind of survey is pretty much meaningless, aside from concluding that there 185 people who responded to a survey and said stuff.

When is your child supposed to start kindergarten? Have you been to kindergarten orientation? That would give you a better idea of what kindergarten specifically at Rosemary Hills is like -- which I think is what's really relevant to your child.

OP again. Here is the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/08/02/the-disturbing-shift-underway-in-early-childhood-classrooms/

We are zoned for Rosemary Hills and are trying to decide about public (likely) or private (could do but will be tight). There was an article yesterday in the Post that brought out all my concerns about public school - namely that the kids are being hounded younger and younger to gain academic skills that make them dislike the concept of school starting young. I went to the MoCo website to look over the curriculum, but honestly, it doesn't answer my main question. How do they teach and how much do they focus on developing a love of learning versus checking off that a kid got to this or that reading level. Thanks for any insight. We went and looked at the school and the kids seemed happy to me - just trying to make a thoughtful decision.