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 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.

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 wrote:

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

Great justification!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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.