Anonymous wrote:

Anecdotes + personal opinions =/= "research shows"

Some things are hard to measure and anecdotal evidence is useful. In anthropological studies, ethnographies are often very useful sources of information. The experience of teachers is very, very useful and does inform opinions. Opinions that are based on experience matter a great deal.

Not everything that matters can be measured and not everything that can be measured matters.

That's fine. But it's not "research shows".

Anonymous wrote:The Highscope study shows damage.

Nevertheless, you can mock me all you want--you always do. However, I have seen the blank stares of a kid who was pushed too early. I have seen kids who can "call words"--even sound out words, but have no clue what they mean or what they have read.
I have also seen how quickly students learn to read when they are "ready".

I have taught hundreds of kids to read. How many have you taught?

Once more, we can now assume that there were no Early Childhood teachers on the committees. Why not?

The Highscope study, which may or may not be a valid study (let alone a good one), shows damage -- from one specific curriculum, for 3-4-year-olds.

We are not discussing personal experience here; we are discussing research, because the PP (was that you?) specifically brought up research.

The Highscope study shows damage.

Nevertheless, you can mock me all you want--you always do. However, I have seen the blank stares of a kid who was pushed too early. I have seen kids who can "call words"--even sound out words, but have no clue what they mean or what they have read.
I have also seen how quickly students learn to read when they are "ready".

I have taught hundreds of kids to read. How many have you taught?

Once more, we can now assume that there were no Early Childhood teachers on the committees. Why not?

Anecdotes + personal opinions =/= "research shows"

Some things are hard to measure and anecdotal evidence is useful. In anthropological studies, ethnographies are often very useful sources of information. The experience of teachers is very, very useful and does inform opinions. Opinions that are based on experience matter a great deal.

Not everything that matters can be measured and not everything that can be measured matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Nothing about damage in that study.

Sorry. I think it is damaging to push kids to read too early when they could be learning other things--and playing.

Anecdotally, I have seen the results of pushing kids to read too early. Sorry, but experience does form opinions.

By the way, if you read the earlier study I posted, you will see that there is social damage. Those pushed into "direct instruction" early tend to have problems with social behavior later.

Anecdotes + personal opinions =/= "research shows"

Anonymous wrote:

So actually the study doesn't say anything about damage, but you still cite the study as evidence of damage, because of your personal opinions and anecdotes?

Go read the other study I posted. It clearly says there are social problems with the kids who are pushed too early.

And, please tell me the names of the Early Childhood teachers on the committee?

I think, since I've been asking this for a very long time, that there were not any. So, I have a new question. Why weren't there any Early Childhood teachers on the committees?

No, it doesn't -- even assuming that the study is good and valid, which is a big assumption.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=837Thi

There is lots of research that supports not pushing direct instruction. Here's a different approach.

This is a longitudinal study of 68 3- and 4-year-olds, randomly assigned to 3 different instructional approaches (so about 23 students per group). It's impossible to evaluate the quality of this study from the link, but certainly very many questions do arise.

Also, Direct Instruction (with capital letters) means something specific and is not synonymous with "pushing academics". You can find more about Direct Instruction here.

Any links to any other studies that, in your opinion, demonstrate that "pushing academics down so early has short term improvements --but long term damage"?

So actually the study doesn't say anything about damage, but you still cite the study as evidence of damage, because of your personal opinions and anecdotes?

Go read the other study I posted. It clearly says there are social problems with the kids who are pushed too early.

And, please tell me the names of the Early Childhood teachers on the committee?

I think, since I've been asking this for a very long time, that there were not any. So, I have a new question. Why weren't there any Early Childhood teachers on the committees?

Anonymous wrote:http://disinfo.com/2013/05/is-early-age-reading-developmentally-appropriate/

a summary of a classic study

This study is about a pair of toddler twins learning to climb stairs, and merely concludes that the untrained twin caught up to the trained twin within a week; no mention of damage. I will be polite and say that it's a considerable stretch to use this study to support your contention that research shows that pushing academics down so early has short term improvements - but long term damage.

Anonymous wrote:

Nothing about damage in that study.

Sorry. I think it is damaging to push kids to read too early when they could be learning other things--and playing.

Anecdotally, I have seen the results of pushing kids to read too early. Sorry, but experience does form opinions.

By the way, if you read the earlier study I posted, you will see that there is social damage. Those pushed into "direct instruction" early tend to have problems with social behavior later.

So actually the study doesn't say anything about damage, but you still cite the study as evidence of damage, because of your personal opinions and anecdotes?

Anonymous wrote:

If a kid is excelling or struggling or improving, our tool can print a report that says, "Johnny needs additional help on CCSS.Math.Content.5.NF.A.1". No matter which school they come from, the parent and the teacher can understand the problem domain and apply their own appropriate solution.

It make sense for everyone to be able to speak the same language about these topics that, let's face it, are not always easy for laymen to understand.

Could you please tell us what CCSS.Math.Content.5NF.A.1 is? So we can see what the language is that we can all speak that makes things so much easier.

It might be easier to just say that Johnny needs to work on adding fractions with unlike denominators. That might be easier for a layman to understand?

It's a fifth-grade math standard:

Add and subtract fractions with unlike denominators (including mixed numbers) by replacing given fractions with equivalent fractions in such a way as to produce an equivalent sum or difference of fractions with like denominators. For example, 2/3 + 5/4 = 8/12 + 15/12 = 23/12. (In general, a/b + c/d = (ad + bc)/bd.)

I find this by putting CCSS.Math.Content.5NF.A.1 in the Google search box.

If a kid is excelling or struggling or improving, our tool can print a report that says, "Johnny needs additional help on CCSS.Math.Content.5.NF.A.1". No matter which school they come from, the parent and the teacher can understand the problem domain and apply their own appropriate solution.

It make sense for everyone to be able to speak the same language about these topics that, let's face it, are not always easy for laymen to understand.

Could you please tell us what CCSS.Math.Content.5NF.A.1 is? So we can see what the language is that we can all speak that makes things so much easier.

It might be easier to just say that Johnny needs to work on adding fractions with unlike denominators. That might be easier for a layman to understand?

I love CCSS!

I run an out of school time program for elementary students and we have a math component. The kids come from eight different elementary schools. If a kid is excelling or struggling or improving, our tool can print a report that says, "Johnny needs additional help on CCSS.Math.Content.5.NF.A.1". No matter which school they come from, the parent and the teacher can understand the problem domain and apply their own appropriate solution.

It make sense for everyone to be able to speak the same language about these topics that, let's face it, are not always easy for laymen to understand.

Those pushed into "direct instruction" early tend to have problems with social behavior later.

+1 As a teacher of older students, this is also true if materials are given that are at too high of a level at any age. Students will "act out" to save face. They would much rather be labeled as behavior problems than as "dummies".

Nothing about damage in that study.

Sorry. I think it is damaging to push kids to read too early when they could be learning other things--and playing.

Anecdotally, I have seen the results of pushing kids to read too early. Sorry, but experience does form opinions.

By the way, if you read the earlier study I posted, you will see that there is social damage. Those pushed into "direct instruction" early tend to have problems with social behavior later.