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.

Again, I leave this thread for a day and see that the anti-CCer is still full of nothing but red herrings and slippery slope arguments.

Nobody here is talking about pushing babies to read, and likewise, the literature being cited is about reading in pre-K vs. K, as opposed to whether it's developmentally inappropriate for kids to have basic concepts and to be able to read emergent texts in K.

Anonymous wrote:

There is research that has been posted that supports this. There is actually quite a bit of research on this in professional books and journals.




Please post links to some of the research that supports the idea that children aged 5-6 shouldn't be at the emergent-reader level.

You go find research that supports it. I posted information about the research that says there is no value to it. And, you are right, I only posted articles about it, but there are enough articles to understand it. As I said, my own experience supports my conviction that it is correct. What supports yours? Oh, yes, 93% of Montgomery county kids can do it. But, guess what? It doesn't appear to hold over the years. Maybe, those K students would have benefited from waiting. As posted earlier, you can teach a twelve year old to drive. A twelve year old can learn to drive. But, should he

Yes, it's down to 70% by grade 2. Not an argument for developmental inappropriateness.

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:

http://web.uvic.ca/~gtreloar/Articles/Language%20Arts/Children%20learning%20to%20read%20later%20catch%20up%20to%20children%20reading%20earlier.pdf

It doesn't say what you say it's saying. It's based on a comparison of two non-comparable groups. And the authors themselves characterize the design as "non-experimental" and strongly qualify the results.

There is research that has been posted that supports this. There is actually quite a bit of research on this in professional books and journals.




Please post links to some of the research that supports the idea that children aged 5-6 shouldn't be at the emergent-reader level.

You go find research that supports it. I posted information about the research that says there is no value to it. And, you are right, I only posted articles about it, but there are enough articles to understand it. As I said, my own experience supports my conviction that it is correct. What supports yours? Oh, yes, 93% of Montgomery county kids can do it. But, guess what? It doesn't appear to hold over the years. Maybe, those K students would have benefited from waiting. As posted earlier, you can teach a twelve year old to drive. A twelve year old can learn to drive. But, should he?

^^^shouldn't be reading at the emergent-reader level.

Anonymous wrote:
There is research that has been posted that supports this. There is actually quite a bit of research on this in professional books and journals.

Please post links to some of the research that supports the idea that children aged 5-6 shouldn't be at the emergent-reader level.

What's the answer? It's developmentally inappropriate because 5-6-year-old kids shouldn't be learning to read; they should be playing and expanding their vocabulary through being read to? That's not an answer, that's an opinion.

No one said they shouldn't be learning to read. The standard should not be for them to read an emergent text. There's a lot out there about child development and learning to read. Once more, there is a difference between learning and training. There is a difference between accretion and development (guess which one creates better thinkers?)

As far as opinion, yes,, it is a very strong opinion. Why? Because I have seen the results of those who were pushed too early. I have also seen kids who, while bright, did not read right away in first grade--and then, the lightbulb comes on and they take off and quickly move through to the top of the class. I guess if you haven't seen this happen, you just cannot believe it--but it is absolutely a fact.
There is research that has been posted that supports this. There is actually quite a bit of research on this in professional books and journals.

A few years ago, there was a push to teach babies to read. Why?

There is no research that I have seen that supports having a standard that kindergarteners should read. Does that mean a teacher does not expose them to letters and sounds? NO. However, having a standard that requires a child to read encourages first grade in Kindergarten. That is just wrong. So many things that Kindergarteners should be doing are taking a back seat to this.

Anonymous wrote:

How/why is it developmentally inappropriate to expect students to be emergent readers by the end of kindergarten? So far all we have is that it's developmentally inappropriate because it's developmentally inappropriate. Oh, and also that some other countries do things differently.

Asked and answered.

You just don't like the answer.

What's the answer? It's developmentally inappropriate because 5-6-year-old kids shouldn't be learning to read; they should be playing and expanding their vocabulary through being read to? That's not an answer, that's an opinion.

How/why is it developmentally inappropriate to expect students to be emergent readers by the end of kindergarten? So far all we have is that it's developmentally inappropriate because it's developmentally inappropriate. Oh, and also that some other countries do things differently.

Asked and answered.

You just don't like the answer.

Anonymous wrote:

There's that circular reasoning again. It goes like this:

1. It's developmentally inappropriate to expect students to be emergent readers by the end of kindergarten.
2. Therefore, if there are data that show that >90% of students in a school system are emergent readers by the end of kindergarten, there must be something wrong with the data.
3. I know this because it's developmentally inappropriate to expect students to be emergent readers by the end of kindergarten.

So, I can teach my 12 year old to drive a car. No problem. Does that mean it is developmentally appropriate?

What benefit comes from teaching a Kindergartener to read an emergent text? Research please.

How/why is it developmentally inappropriate to expect students to be emergent readers by the end of kindergarten? So far all we have is that it's developmentally inappropriate because it's developmentally inappropriate. Oh, and also that some other countries do things differently.

Anonymous wrote:

Most of them have preschools that they PLAY in though. They aren't worksheet drilled to prep them for standardized testing down the road.

I was just speaking to two teachers at the two elite private schools in our area. Neither are doing Common Core or any of the testing.

Is that so? How do you know?

Also, I really don't know where people get the idea, which is very common on this forum, that kindergarten nowadays consists of nothing but sitting at desks doing worksheets.

Finally, why is it relevant what private schools do? Even "elite" private schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Compulsory Starting School Ages


http://www.bbc.com/news/education-24058227

In Northern Ireland, the statutory age of entry to school is four.

In England, Scotland, Wales, Cyprus and Malta, the age is five.

The statutory age is six in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey.

The age is seven in Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Serbia and Sweden

(Figures from the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER))

That's incomplete and misleading, though, since many (if not all) of those countries have basically universal preschool.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2013/05/02/62054/the-united-states-is-far-behind-other-countries-on-pre-k/

Most of them have preschools that they PLAY in though. They aren't worksheet drilled to prep them for standardized testing down the road.

I was just speaking to two teachers at the two elite private schools in our area. Neither are doing Common Core or any of the testing.

There's that circular reasoning again. It goes like this:

1. It's developmentally inappropriate to expect students to be emergent readers by the end of kindergarten.
2. Therefore, if there are data that show that >90% of students in a school system are emergent readers by the end of kindergarten, there must be something wrong with the data.
3. I know this because it's developmentally inappropriate to expect students to be emergent readers by the end of kindergarten.

So, I can teach my 12 year old to drive a car. No problem. Does that mean it is developmentally appropriate?

What benefit comes from teaching a Kindergartener to read an emergent text? Research please.

Anonymous wrote:

Darn it, I can never remember if I'm supposed to trust teachers or not. I guess I'm supposed to trust teachers when teachers say stuff I agree with but distrust teachers when teachers say stuff I disagree with?

Actually, a little common sense goes a long way when looking at scores.

"When words such as 'obviously' and 'common sense' recur, it's a sign that matters are hardly obvious or commensensical."

(I didn't say that; Carlos Lozada did. He's the nonfiction book critic of the Washington Post.)

Anonymous wrote:

Darn it, I can never remember if I'm supposed to trust teachers or not. I guess I'm supposed to trust teachers when teachers say stuff I agree with but distrust teachers when teachers say stuff I disagree with?

Actually, a little common sense goes a long way when looking at scores.

There's that circular reasoning again. It goes like this:

1. It's developmentally inappropriate to expect students to be emergent readers by the end of kindergarten.
2. Therefore, if there are data that show that >90% of students in a school system are emergent readers by the end of kindergarten, there must be something wrong with the data.
3. I know this because it's developmentally inappropriate to expect students to be emergent readers by the end of kindergarten.