Why do we start at 5?

[Murphy101]

Not quite accurate. They are doing lots of things between age 5 and 7 in those countries even if it doesn't look like what we do.

 

Altho I don't start at 5. I start to think about it at 5. But I'm entirely comfortable with waiting until 7.

 

Thing is, my littles are constantly around kids who are learning, reading, doing math and science experiments. Even if they aren't ready, they are very eager. So I'll start them when they show an interest with zero expectations. With my last 3 this has been a great opportunity for me to really dig deep into how their brains work. By the time we are ready to be more formal and develop some expectations, I usually have a solid grasp of what will or will not work for them. The need to branch into an entirely new direction with dc7 this year is a prime example. A year into letting him join us when he wants for learning was more than enough for me to see that he has drasticly different learning needs. Possibly what I should have done with my oldest years ago.

 

Anyhow. Jmo.

[Gratia271]

It doesn't seem to me that American educational standards are too rigorous. The manner in which they are implemented may or may not comport with what we individually believe is the best way for students to learn at a given age, but the standards in themselves are not rigorous.

 

I don't personally subscribe to "paper work = education" nor do I think that the number of hours per day doing seat work determines the quality of schooling. That being said, early literacy is not a new concept nor is the ability to understand basic math or write one's name. Very young children are capable of such things.

 

In my estimation, education is devalued in American culture. (This is in no way directed at anyone personally.) Children have incredible potential which should not be wasted... how we go about nurturing that potential will vary considerably, of course. ;)

[shamima]

"Play with your kids until they are 7, train them for the next 7 years, and then be their friend from then on." That quote has been attributed to Prophet Muhammad and his cousin and son in law Ali.

 

I think the question is what kind of play, if it's constructive play then it'll lead to easier training cycle. My 5 year old loves to play w/ pencil, paper and books when she gets motivated by watching elder siblings in training :-) However, as soon as I see that she's losing interest, I make sure to direct her toward her dolls and her tea party.

[Macrina]

I think you can have fun engaging playtime that is also "educational" and that can happen before the age of 5, because children's brains are already growing rapidly at that age.

 

And while it is great to let them have totally free-play, where they invent their own scenarios, there is much to be said for the kind of "guided discovery" a child can have with things such as Cuisenaire Rod play and adapted Miquon and Miquon-like activities.

 

Why miss this window when there are age-appropriate means of brain-building?

 

Bill

 

:iagree: My 2 and a half year old spends about 30 min a day with me "playing" and it's really what Bill described above. We play with math manipulatives, sorting toys, HTW manipulatives.... It's her favorite part of the day.

[Snowfall]

How do you explain the predictable and multitudes of posts here where mothers lament how lazy their 5 and 6 yr olds are, and how they don't 'get it!' and 'don't try!"

 

<raises hand in shame> Although I don't call my kid lazy!!! I have said she just doesn't get something. My DH only agreed that we could do this thing if he thought it was "working". He doesn't want her to be "behind" no matter how much I explain to him that

 

1. She's actually ahead because, for instance, she can actually sound out words due to some good phonics instruction, rather than just read the list of 50 sight words our sisters' DDs learned in K. The fact that she's reluctant doesn't mean she can't do it, but he sort of thinks reluctance = lack of ability = lack of success, because our two sisters' kids haven't been reluctant to read their prescribed list of words, found in the books handed out at school, which are the only books they can read since they're the only ones that don't have other words in them. :001_huh:

 

and

 

2. Being "behind" at age 5 or 6 doesn't actually mean anything in the long run anyway.

 

So I'm left embattled. On the one hand, the more I leave DD alone about formal academics, the more she tries things on her own - writing lists and notes using imperfect (but decipherable and logical!) spelling or adding and subtracting larger numbers than her math so far has covered simply because she needs to know something. On the other hand, the more I leave DD alone about formal academics, the more DH starts thinking we aren't doing anything and she needs to go to school next year. And I'm screwed, because the more I don't leave her alone about it, the more battles we have, the more frustrated we both get, the more tantrums she has, the more she refuses to do anything...and then DH starts thinking she needs to go to school next year for those reasons.

 

It's not that my DH is a controlling jerk. If I say that we are absolutely going to home school next year, even if he disagrees, he won't take her out and put her in school against my will. However, that would make me feel like I'm doing something against his wishes. So I really, really want him to agree with what I'm doing, and the only way to get that is to do some formal stuff with my almost 6-year-old DD, who really hasn't been mature enough for it, even though she's definitely smart enough for it.

 

That reminds me of another reason it's so easy to start too early and get frustrated! My DD is really, really smart. When you listen to conversations she has with other kids her age, it's so apparent that she just knows more than many of them about all kinds of things. No, she doesn't read fluently, but she can tell you all about the solar system, animals, gardening...a LOT of things. She's like a little treasure trove of sheer information. The fact that she's sooooo knowledgeable about so many things and so clearly intelligent is deceptive. That more than anything else makes my DH really feel that she ought to be capable of doing math or reading well or whatever. After all, if she can tell you the names of 25 different dinosaurs, what period they lived in, whether they were ornischian or saurischian, herbivore or carnivor, etc., etc., then how on earth could she not be ready to read fluently? This is what he thinks and sometimes even I get sucked into it - especially when I know that he's expecting certain results.

 

There's also the issue of other people. It's difficult to explain to them why your K'er isn't doing the same things as other K'ers or why yours doesn't know the things someone else's knows. If she can't read the book my niece brought home, she must not be as smart. Of course it's stupid to compare, but when you know people are doing it, it can make you feel pressured.

 

So those are my reasons. Yes, they are silly and they suck, but there they are. If my husband didn't care, we'd have done nothing but play all year, done phonogram flash cards (hey, she LOVES them for some reason), taken museum and zoo fields trips, and played Sum Swamp. How do you balance one parent's need to feel that their kid is doing academic work with the other parent's desire to lay off for another year so the kid can mature? :confused:

Edited May 2, 2010 by Snowfall

[Spy Car]

:iagree: My 2 and a half year old spends about 30 min a day with me "playing" and it's really what Bill described above. We play with math manipulatives, sorting toys, HTW manipulatives.... It's her favorite part of the day.

 

If there is something I will always feel eternally grateful for in my son's education it will be having found fun, enjoyable, and creative means to help him learn in the toddler-kindergarten years.

 

It deepened our bond. And I can see that he has a curious, opened and engaged mind. There are many ways to get to this end. And "play" is a big component of how a child should be spending his or her time. But one can play and learn at the same time.

 

Have fun with your daughter :001_smile:

 

I found the time spent playing and learning was my favorite part of the day too!

 

Bill

[Gratia271]

Can you and your husband just agree to disagree? My husband and I do regularly. :001_smile: Regarding what others say or do, ignore them. You need to determine the best approach for teaching her and proceed accordingly. Many people can offer their own experiences which may or may not be helpful. That is one (among many others) reason that comparisons don't work.

[Gratia271]

And I can see that he has a curious, opened and engaged mind. There are many ways to get to this end. And "play" is a big component of how a child should be spending his or her time. But one can play and learn at the same time.Bill

 

:iagree: "Play" is a precursor to problem solving. In fact, watching my son and his cousins play is watching problem solving in action.

[justamouse]

I hate it, myself. I've held my kids off, and I find that they are much more ready (maturity wise) to handle the work. And, as you see, there is no gap with children in other countries.

 

I think it's federally required childcare, myself.

[LibraryLover]

There is nothing wrong with it. Not a thing. It's how one goes about it, and whether one is keeping in mind developmentally appropriate practice, or whether one is doing this every day:

:banghead:

 

Big difference. Huge.

 

 

What's wrong with knowing how to read when you finish kindergarten? Or being able to do sums? Or count money? Or write?

 

My son is in kindergarten. And I spend time in the class-room. And the kids are having a marvelous time. They are not being stressed out. They are being engaged in a joyful manner. The experiences and activities are rich and varied. And the children are learning and flourishing.

 

I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

Bill

[Snowfall]

Can you and your husband just agree to disagree? My husband and I do regularly. :001_smile: Regarding what others say or do, ignore them. You need to determine the best approach for teaching her and proceed accordingly. Many people can offer their own experiences which may or may not be helpful. That is one (among many others) reason that comparisons don't work.

 

We probably should agree to disagree, but there's that issue of me not wanting to feel like I'm just ignoring what he wants or devaluing his opinion. Does that make sense? I don't want him to feel that way. I think right now what we're working with is that we're going to do 1st grade at home starting in the fall, then we'll see where we're at. I think she'll be more ready by then and things will be fine. That's what I hope anyway. lol

 

The one thing that supports my case is how much she does already know, just because she was interested. Two of my sister's children are in the gifted program. The 1st grader reads at a 3rd grade level, but the K'er can only read her list of words. Our DD knows more than they do though, so while I'm not saying she's smarter than them (really, I'm not) I am saying that she has her own version of intelligence. Hers isn't one she can put on display, like when people ask my one niece to read such and such to them, but it becomes apparent when you talk to her for a while. She can't read to herself to learn things yet, but clearly I've done a fine job reading to her and she's done a fine job absorbing that information, so I see no real reason for him to complain. She's still learning. :tongue_smilie:And heck, so am I. Before DD, I had no idea dinosaurs were classified by the construction of their pelvis, or that T. Rex didn't actually live during the Jurassic. :D

[LibraryLover]

:iagree: "Play" is a precursor to problem solving. In fact, watching my son and his cousins play is watching problem solving in action.

 

So people like us are comparing apples to oranges. I find too many folks think joy and play are separate from learning. That they must be or children will never grow to know how to hold a job. "They will think it's all fun and games!" This has to be why so many say, "Sit here and do these worksheets while I go clean the kitchen (leaving the young child to work independantly) and then you can go and play". Until internet hsing boards, I had no idea that so many hsers were perpetuating the mistakes of developmentally inappropriate school/kindy practices.

Edited May 2, 2010 by LibraryLover

[justamouse]

 

My oldest hid in her room for her entire 13th year and did nothing but read. She had been through Algebra I and half of Algebra II and just stalled out. She quit doing math for almost 18 months during this period. At 14, she emerged from hibernation, enrolled in college classes (taking and scoring an A in a 300 level German Civ class her first year), and joined the land of the living. She wound up going all the way though Calc III before graduation and went to college on scholarship as a NM finalist.

 

I'm not saying my way is for everyone, but it's a mistake to think that all learning is linear, stepped, and perfectly proportional. Children can start late and end up ahead. They can drop in at the middle place and pick up the material at a higher level. It all depends on what they are doing with their time. Exercise, imaginative play, household chores, and interactions with friends and siblings create neural connections where eventually math equations and reading comprehension will travel. The brain is mysterious.

 

Barb

 

Wow, I needed this right now. Really. It's so hard being brave enough to let go.

 

Wow, you have no idea how timely this is for me. My daughter tried, at her own request, an elite private school last fall and "stalled out" by November: a combination of stress, boredom, and mono. For several months afterwards she did nothing but read Star Trek books and go through the series on DVDs. I was so panicked, trying to figure out how we would ever get through high school at home. I still am panicked, truthfully. Despite the fact that she is slowly re-engaging in other things, writing creatively, going to musicals and plays, etc., she is not doing anything that would remotely resemble a typical or full 8th grader's schedule. Yet somehow, when she reads satires or spoofs on things ranging from journalism to movie-making to soccer, she has learned about them and understands the satire. I have no idea how.

 

You are so courageous and so wise to have given your daughter the time to work through that inwardness and solitary learning her own way. It gives me hope to know that my child's own internal schedule is part of a spectrum of ways that kids' learning unfolds. I've always felt learning is not linear and in my child neither is it incremental. Thanks for the validation of my own very shaky and unconfident intuitions about my child.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Gratia271]

We probably should agree to disagree, but there's that issue of me not wanting to feel like I'm just ignoring what he wants or devaluing his opinion. Does that make sense? I don't want him to feel that way. I think right now what we're working with is that we're going to do 1st grade at home starting in the fall, then we'll see where we're at. I think she'll be more ready by then and things will be fine. That's what I hope anyway. lol

 

The one thing that supports my case is how much she does already know, just because she was interested. Two of my sister's children are in the gifted program. The 1st grader reads at a 3rd grade level, but the K'er can only read her list of words. Our DD knows more than they do though, so while I'm not saying she's smarter than them (really, I'm not) I am saying that she has her own version of intelligence. Hers isn't one she can put on display, like when people ask my one niece to read such and such to them, but it becomes apparent when you talk to her for a while. She can't read to herself to learn things yet, but clearly I've done a fine job reading to her and she's done a fine job absorbing that information, so I see no real reason for him to complain. She's still learning. :tongue_smilie:And heck, so am I. Before DD, I had no idea dinosaurs were classified by the construction of their pelvis, or that T. Rex didn't actually live during the Jurassic. :D

 

It is amazing how our educations expand when we have children! ;) Your daughter is clearly a smart girl with outstanding retention. I understand the sentiment about not wanting to devalue his opinion. I don't think you are doing that inasmuch as your daughter is clearly thriving academically which is the goal you both share.... maybe it is just a difference in semantics.

[Barb_]

We probably should agree to disagree, but there's that issue of me not wanting to feel like I'm just ignoring what he wants or devaluing his opinion. Does that make sense? I don't want him to feel that way. I think right now what we're working with is that we're going to do 1st grade at home starting in the fall, then we'll see where we're at. I think she'll be more ready by then and things will be fine. That's what I hope anyway. lol

 

But you know better. You are with your child 24/7 and are better acquainted with her needs and abilities. Your opinion is simply worth more because it is a better informed opinion. Put it this way...would you attempt to give him advice regarding a situation at his job that you are only partially familiar with? Would he expect to hold your opinion in high esteem knowing full well you only have part of the picture? Do you trust him to make the right choices at his job without the need to consult you, even though you know that his screwing it up would have major consequences for the entire family? Trust is the issue here.

 

Agreeing to disagree doesn't devalue his opinion if his opinion is based on faulty logic and incomplete information. Agreeing to disagree gives you enough space and time to quietly prove you know what you are talking about. Allowing what is essentially a marriage issue come between your daughter and her education can have far reaching consequences on her attitude toward learning. Your marriage can handle a little short term imperfection...you are both adults and can work things out. Your daughter is in the earliest stages of forming her personality and the stakes with her are a lot higher.

 

Barb

[m0mmaBuck]

I think, as others have said, it's the method used that makes a huge difference at this age. If the learning is joyful and engaging the child enjoys learning. If the teaching method is more of a forced seatwork situation, the child may choose to be disengaged because the method does not capture his/her interest.

 

I started HS'ing DS when DD was 3. She asks for 'homework' because she sees her brother doing seatwork so I have a set of workbooks on hand (cutting, coloring, numbers, letters, matching, beginning phonics). On most days she will choose to do something similar to what she sees her brother doing (i.e. numbers during math time or letters during LA). Other days she will choose to work through an entire book of mazes.

She also listens in during readalouds and participates during science and history for as long as I/we maintain her interest. We play games, use flashcards, go on 'field trips,' and of course we read, read, read.

 

She turned 4 in February. She can count to 20 and write the same. She knows and can write her ABCs. She can cut straight and curved lines. She can spell the names of those in our family and can determine beginning and end sounds in words. She recognizes some site words. She can name and identify the planets in the solar system including the dwarf planets. She knows the difference between plants and animals as well as mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and birds. She can also do some simple addition/subraction (loves manipulatives). And she knows who Boudica and King Tut were too! ;) I don't think much of this had to do with seatwork (other than writing and cutting). I think the majority of what she knows has to do with playing, reading, and generally being along for the ride.

[Barb_]

I think, as others have said, it's the method used that makes a huge difference at this age. If the learning is joyful and engaging the child enjoys learning. If the teaching method is more of a forced seatwork situation, the child may choose to be disengaged because the method does not capture his/her interest.

 

Yes there is quite a spectrum of what is considered "school" on this thread. I think it's mistake to make Kindergarten mandatory. I think it's a mistake to make all-day academic seatwork-text style Kindergarten available anywhere. I think it's a mistake to feel that seatwork and formal school time MUST begin at 5 or the child will fall behind. This mistaken belief stems from our societal belief that if a little is good, more is better (in so many arenas, not just this one) and if early is good, than earlier must be even better. Delight-led schooling at that age is never a mistake, but when one begins dragging the horse to water, it's time to rethink things.

 

:o I'm guilty of pushing formal academics on my oldest for reasons mentioned above. I feel the need to come clean. I'm Barb and I'm a reformed Pushy Mom. My oldest had the ability and interest to read at age 4. She caught on to Math quickly. She wanted to please me. I'm guilty of pleading, "just finish the page...I know you know how to do this." I'm guilty of nudging her ahead in her math books so that people would notice the grade level on the cover and be amazed. I'm guilty of believing that Kindergarten was a necessity and that if she was already past the Kindy material at 4, well then we'd better get started on the first and second grade level stuff a little early. I was excited and wanted to give her the advanced education I craved as a child. I pushed her partly for me and partly for her. I convinced myself she was so smart that she was simply pulling me along. And from the outside, it looked that way at times, but she was my oldest and I'll say again...a lot of it had to do with pleasing me. She knew schoolwork was the fastest way to get my undivided attention and so she went along even when she was tired or burned out or just not getting it. I wasn't as wise as other posters on this thread who avoided my mistakes. But I do see myself in other posters elsewhere on the boards and I cringe.

 

To my credit, I learned from my mistakes. My second child benefited somewhat from my change in perspective, but I still hadn't shaken the idea that a couple hours of early formal seatwork *had* to be done in those 5-7 years or risk neglecting my children. Nonsense. By the time my *real* challenges came along, I began to delay seatwork out of self-preservation. Oh, we still learned together, but it looked suspiciously like unschooling. The teach 'em when they aren't looking method. I still would have preferred to do something formal a year or two earlier, but it took finally giving in and trying medication to get there. In the meantime, I didn't yell, I didn't get exasperated, and I didn't worry. I had the luxury of perspective and my younger kids are reaping the rewards.

 

Barb

[Karen in CO]

I didn't yell, I didn't get exasperated, and I didn't worry. I had the luxury of perspective and my younger kids are reaping the rewards.

 

Barb

 

Barb - You are wise.

 

I love the perspective I have from having graduated one before the last even neared an academic age.

[Annie Laurie]

Because parents need somewhere to stash their dc while they all go to work. Because the state gets $$ for children who are enrolled, so they encourage it and make us all think our dc will be functionally illiterate or socially unacceptable if they don't start school that young.

 

When my child had just turned 5, (and was going to stay at home), my friend's child was also just turning 5 and going to public school kindergarten, they had half-day kindergarten, and she asked the principal if her child was going to be behind from doing half-day kindergarten intead of full day like some other kindergartens in the area.

[Barb_]

Barb - You are wise.

 

I love the perspective I have from having graduated one before the last even neared an academic age.

 

It makes a huge difference, doesn't it Karen? Almost like I'm homeschooling my grandchildren.

 

Did I just say that??

:leaving:

 

Barb

[Heather in VA]

Of course kids are eager, curious, and learning at this age; of course some kids are ready and begging to read -- or are already reading; and many enjoy a few colorful worksheets, a handwriting program, games, art, and other activities spread out during a day that also contains plenty of free play and running around.

 

I don't think this what some of the posters were warning against. Rather, we're talking about the developmental inappropriateness of full-day academic kindergarten where five-year-old kids are expected to be sitting, reading, writing, filling out worksheets and doing math workbooks for a number of hours during the day, being tested by the district, state, and nation several times during the year, etc. This is a very different creature.

 

Actually mosts of the posts on this matter I've seen over the last few years are more in terms of the evils of starting early or even at the same age of traditional schools and are quite prideful of waiting with their own kids. The topic is almost always referring to a homeschool setting. It is not wrong to wait if that is where the child is developmentally but I find that many who wait do not hold that it is possible for it to be ok not to or assume that those who start earlier are forcing their children into hours of painful stress and tears over work they are ill-equipped to do.

 

Children are all different. They are ready for different things at different times. There are just as many kids who are very ready for academics at 5 as there are those who really should wait. The public schools can't accommodate every child. That's a main reason many of us choose to homeschool.

 

Heather

[Laura Corin]

It may also be a question of the differences in the written languages. I don't know anything about the Japanese school system, but the Japanese script is complex, using Chinese characters plus (I believe) two other writing forms.

 

In China, children learn to recognise simple characters fairly early, but they don't learn to write until later, just because the language is not phonetic and it's hard to write. People in China were often amazed that my boys were reading proper books at seven: a seven-year-old Chinese child just would not have learned enough characters to read a decent sized book.

 

Laura

[susankenny]

What's wrong with knowing how to read when you finish kindergarten? Or being able to do sums? Or count money? Or write?

 

 

Nothing is wrong if the child is ready. My little boy is in kindergarten and is learning to read beautifully. My little girl learned to read later by age 6 1/2 or 7 (although we started when she was 5 1/2). At age 8 1/2, she reads above grade level. I thought this thread was in reference to public schools though & that's what I'm referencing. In my opinion, there is a big difference between a child reading when they're ready & a child that ends up being penalized because they aren't. In public school here, reading is a prerequisite to enter grade 1. The academic standards are increasing each year and expectations seem to fall on children younger and younger these days. It seems many children I know in real life are struggling to keep up. My friends and sisters seem to have unnecessary worry over issues that, imho, would most likely work themselves out with some maturity and time. This is just my opinion. I understand it varies though.

 

Susan

[susankenny]

Children are all different. They are ready for different things at different times. There are just as many kids who are very ready for academics at 5 as there are those who really should wait. The public schools can't accommodate every child. That's a main reason many of us choose to homeschool.

 

Heather

 

I agree.

[mo2]

Because parents need somewhere to stash their dc while they all go to work. Because the state gets $$ for children who are enrolled, so they encourage it and make us all think our dc will be functionally illiterate or socially unacceptable if they don't start school that young.

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Barb_]

Actually mosts of the posts on this matter I've seen over the last few years are more in terms of the evils of starting early or even at the same age of traditional schools and are quite prideful of waiting with their own kids. The topic is almost always referring to a homeschool setting.

 

But the question that sparked this series of posts was, "Why do we start at 5?" And I think the answer to that is, "Because we expect to." Why do we expect to? Because it's a given in our society, and we worry that if we don't, the children will lag behind. I don't believe this particular thread as been about the evils of beginning early but the evils of forcing a child who isn't ready to begin formal bookwork simply because he's hit the magical age.

 

Barb

[Snowfall]

Thank you, Barb and Gratia. :001_smile: That does make me feel better.

[m0mmaBuck]

You know, before I started HS'ing I found it odd that my HS'ing neighbor's son couldn't read at 7 yo... Of course now he's 10 and could read Shakespeare and comprehend it so I guess she knew her child better than I did. Who woulda thunk it?

[lauracolumbus]

Nothing is wrong if the child is ready. My little boy is in kindergarten and is learning to read beautifully. My little girl learned to read later by age 6 1/2 or 7 (although we started when she was 5 1/2). At age 8 1/2, she reads above grade level. I thought this thread was in reference to public schools though & that's what I'm referencing. In my opinion, there is a big difference between a child reading when they're ready & a child that ends up being penalized because they aren't. In public school here, reading is a prerequisite to enter grade 1. The academic standards are increasing each year and expectations seem to fall on children younger and younger these days. It seems many children I know in real life are struggling to keep up. My friends and sisters seem to have unnecessary worry over issues that, imho, would most likely work themselves out with some maturity and time. This is just my opinion. I understand it varies though.

 

 

Susan

 

 

:iagree: My ds was in a parochial school through 3d grade. Kind'y was only half a day. Now it's a full day. Our governor is trying mandate all day kind'y, but schools are rebelling b/c they just don't have the room. By third grade my ds was doing 1 hour of homework (mostly busy work) and the principal increased the school day by an extra 20 mins. So, while half day kindergarten was fun, by the third grade he was a miserable child having to sit and be in control all day and then come home and face another hour of work.

When compulsory education started most children had early morning chores that burned off a lot of their excess energy and going to school was a nice break. It also wasn't 180 days with homework most nights of the week! (Homework started once a week in ds' kindergarten). And somehow we managed to educate our children fairly well.

 

Laura

[jld]

Barb, thank you so much for what you've written, especially your sharing of your experience with your first child. As a mom of many, you surely know of what you speak. Thanks for giving us the benefit of your wisdom.:)

[amtmcm]

What's wrong with knowing how to read when you finish kindergarten? Or being able to do sums? Or count money? Or write?

 

My son is in kindergarten. And I spend time in the class-room. And the kids are having a marvelous time. They are not being stressed out. They are being engaged in a joyful manner. The experiences and activities are rich and varied. And the children are learning and flourishing.

 

I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

Bill

 

Because of this (I hope Heather doesn't mind me quoting her here):

 

 

Children are all different. They are ready for different things at different times. There are just as many kids who are very ready for academics at 5 as there are those who really should wait. The public schools can't accommodate every child. That's a main reason many of us choose to homeschool.

 

Heather

 

:iagree:

 

Not every child is ready for anything remotely academic at age 5, or 6, or even 7.

 

My oldest DD was reading before she turned 4, in K she was reading at a 2nd grade level and by 4th grade she scored "PHS" (Past High School) in just about every category on her SAT. She was (and still is) on fire to learn everything and anything.

 

When she was 4 she was in Mom's Day Out and my DH and I thought the tactile activities and imaginative play were overly emphasized and did not stretch her abilities. She was well beyond this level. Soooooo... when younger DD came along, we decided not to make the same "mistake" and put her in a rigorous pre-K class at the same private school with big sister. What a disaster!

 

Younger DD is a late bloomer in everything academic. She didn't read until she was 7 and she has NO interest in academics. She likes gardening, exploring nature, running, playing, you get the picture.... I highly regret pushing her into pre-K at 4 1/2 - she learned to hate school because she wasn't ready for it. This is a huge reason why I decided to homeschool her, so I can work with her individually, focus on her strengths and inspire a love of learning.

 

Some children are ready to read and count money in K and some aren't. My younger DD is no slouch, she also scores above grade level on SAT's. But I think we could have avoided her hating school if we had waited &/or taken a hands-on, non-academic approach with her.

 

My 2 cents.

[Stellalarella]

Well, speaking for myself, I can say that I sent two 5 year old girls to kindergarden and a six year old boy, and I sincerely regret it. They didn't need all day school with one 15 to 20 minute recess,and standardized testing in the spring. My kids were well behaved in school, but when they would come home, they would just fall apart. That, to my eyes, is a sure sign that they were being stressed beyond their limits. They needed a nap, they needed to play, they needed someone to read them books, books, books. They needed to draw and make mud pies and build forts. I guess that is the nifty thing about having 6 kids. I just get to try again--and with my youngest 3 DC, we will not be sending them off to kindergarden, and we are not loading them up here at home with piles of worksheets or scheduled activities. David Elkind's book, The Power of Play, really spoke to me and encouraged me in this area. Also, I'm reading "Last Child In the Woods" by Richard Louv. This book talks about how children need to be outside. The other thing that had a major impact on our decision to back off on rigorous schooling for the young ones was a parenting conference called "Grace Based Parenting" by Tim Kimmel.

[Spy Car]

Not every child is ready for anything remotely academic at age 5, or 6, or even 7.

 

My oldest DD was reading before she turned 4, in K she was reading at a 2nd grade level and by 4th grade she scored "PHS" (Past High School) in just about every category on her SAT. She was (and still is) on fire to learn everything and anything.

 

When she was 4 she was in Mom's Day Out and my DH and I thought the tactile activities and imaginative play were overly emphasized and did not stretch her abilities. She was well beyond this level. Soooooo... when younger DD came along, we decided not to make the same "mistake" and put her in a rigorous pre-K class at the same private school with big sister. What a disaster!

 

Younger DD is a late bloomer in everything academic. She didn't read until she was 7 and she has NO interest in academics. She likes gardening, exploring nature, running, playing, you get the picture.... I highly regret pushing her into pre-K at 4 1/2 - she learned to hate school because she wasn't ready for it. This is a huge reason why I decided to homeschool her, so I can work with her individually, focus on her strengths and inspire a love of learning.

 

Some children are ready to read and count money in K and some aren't. My younger DD is no slouch, she also scores above grade level on SAT's. But I think we could have avoided her hating school if we had waited &/or taken a hands-on, non-academic approach with her.

 

My 2 cents.

 

But it kind of proves my point that the problem comes with using inappropriate means, and not with when one "starts."

 

And "delaying" doesn't really solve the problem of using age-inappropriate means. Not really. There is always a way to reach a child at their level.

 

Meeting those needs is obviously easer one-on-one at home than it is in school, but in my son's class the needs of children on many different levels are accommodated very well.

 

None of the kids are stressed out. All can count, even the ones who are most developmentally delayed. And if they couldn't means would need to be found to work on precursor skills (as was done).

 

I just don't see a two option dichotomy between pushing inappropriate "academics" and doing nothing.

 

There is a 3rd way.

 

Bill

[LibraryLover]

Bill. I do not disagree with you. But you have no way of knowing how school stressors play out at home for any of these kids. You simply do not.

 

All of my children children read at a young age. Yet I know plenty of kids who wouldn't even want to play your games, or even the most fantastic developmental games at school, no matter how fun you/we/me think they are.

 

For some kids, doing *nothing* is exactly what they need.

 

I know your experince with your particular child doesn't tell you this, and that is your reality. You have no reason to try and understand anything beyond your owm experiences, or what you think you know about your dc's class-mates. There is no way you can know. It's impossible to know.

 

:) However, I wouldn't dare argue with you. You know what you know, and your experinces are valid, if limited to a few kindergarten -age students, and your own 5 year- old child. As time goes by, and those children grow, you will see greater diversity in learning styles.

 

But it kind of proves my point that the problem comes with using inappropriate means, and not with when one "starts."

 

And "delaying" doesn't really solve the problem of using age-inappropriate means. Not really. There is always a way to reach a child at their level.

 

Meeting those needs is obviously easer one-on-one at home than it is in school, but in my son's class the needs of children on many different levels are accommodated very well.

 

None of the kids are stressed out. All can count, even the ones who are most developmentally delayed. And if they couldn't means would need to be found to work on precursor skills (as was done).

 

I just don't see a two option dichotomy between pushing inappropriate "academics" and doing nothing.

 

There is a 3rd way.

 

Bill

Edited May 3, 2010 by LibraryLover

[KuniMom]

We lived in Japan, and my children attended Japanese school. From my experience, you had to be 6 on April 1st to attend 1st grade in Japan. It was only 1/2 day for part of the year, and then transitioned to a full day. They were taught how to read in 1st grade, starting with the phonetic alphabets (there are two of them there). My one daughter was 7, and she was in 2nd grade there. I don't think they start the picture characters until 2nd or 3rd grade. Some of the children coming into 1st grade already knew how to read, but that is not a given. Preschool there is not academic in nature at all.

 

Hmmm. My visitor (who has 12, 11, and 8 yo) said they go to school to learn reading and writing starting at 7. She told me there is preschool but reading and writing generally start after 7.

 

Emily

[Spy Car]

Bill. I do not disagree with you. But you have no way of knowing how school stressors play out at home for any of these kids. You simply do ot/

 

True. But I have spent a significant amount of time in the class-room and I see what goes on, and have witnessed the progress each and every child has made, even those who were least able.

 

And it is a joyous environment where the teacher and parent volunteers bring a great deal to the table. I've never seen a single activity that I felt was age-inappropriate

 

 

All of my children children read at a young age. But I know plenty of kids who wouldn't even want to play your games, no matter how fun you think they are are.

 

For some kids, doing *nothing* is exactly what they need.

 

I can't accept that doing *nothing* is good for any child.

 

 

I wouldn't dare argue with you. You know what you know, and your experinces are valid, if limited to kindergarten age students. As time goes by and those children grow, you will see greater diversity in learning styles.

 

I see a great diversity of "learning styles" (if that's the term we wish to use) now. Why would I expect that to change? Have I argued for some "cookie-cutter" approach to teaching children? I don't think so.

 

I just don't see leaving them adrift to do *nothing* as a tack that will pay off for many children.

 

Bill

[amtmcm]

 

And "delaying" doesn't really solve the problem of using age-inappropriate means. Not really. There is always a way to reach a child at their level.

 

 

You might be surprised. :) My younger DD recognizes stealth learning when she sees it. DH and I used to laugh about her balking when we tried to "trick" her into learning something. LOL!

 

 

Meeting those needs is obviously easer one-on-one at home than it is in school, but in my son's class the needs of children on many different levels are accommodated very well.

 

None of the kids are stressed out. All can count, even the ones who are most developmentally delayed. And if they couldn't means would need to be found to work on precursor skills (as was done).

 

 

Unfortunately, I think your son's school may not be the norm. I think most classrooms teach to the middle (or there about) and expect kids to fall in line. And I think most main stream classrooms use worksheets (in addition to stations and other hands-on activities) to measure progress. This is a real "love of learning" killer for some kids - especially those who are not yet writing well.

 

I just don't see a two option dichotomy between pushing inappropriate "academics" and doing nothing.

 

I doubt anyone on this board does "nothing" with their young children (and I'm sure you're not implying that). But if I could to do it over again with my disinterested student, I would have allowed her 1-2 more years to play and explore rather than sit in a classroom. That would have been a terrible waste for my older DD who was totally engaged in learning (and from reading your posts in the past I assume is also your experience with your DS). But my younger DD just wasn't ready for reading or writing at 5 or even 6, and I think learning those skills would have been more joyous for her if she had been older. We may need to agree to disagree on this one.

Edited May 3, 2010 by amtmcm

[LibraryLover]

True. But I have spent a significant amount of time in the class-room and I see what goes on, and have witnessed the progress each and every child has made, even those who were least able.

 

And it is a joyous environment where the teacher and parent volunteers bring a great deal to the table. I've never seen a single activity that I felt was age-inappropriate

 

 

 

I can't accept that doing *nothing* is good for any child.

 

 

 

 

I see a great diversity of "learning styles" (if that's the term we wish to use) now. Why would I expect that to change? Have I argued for some "cookie-cutter" approach to teaching children? I don't think so.

 

I just don't see leaving them adrift to do *nothing* as a tack that will pay off for many children.

 

Bill

 

 

Bill, you are not the teacher, and you are not the parent of all of those children.

 

And doing nothing with respect is not doing nothing.

Edited May 3, 2010 by LibraryLover

[LibraryLover]

Kindergarten should be a happy, lovely place. Many schools do kindy fine.

 

Bill has one child in public school kindergarten, and I am respectfully agreeing to agree with his (meanng you, Spy Car Bill lol) particular, if limited, experience. My children have not attended public elementary school, but have attended a non-relgious private school which did K so beautifully it often brought tears to my eyes. All of the children were engaged and happy, and were all over the place in terms of literacy. Some could read well, some not so much. If Bill stays at this school with his child, he will see a huge range of needs as the years pass...met and unmet. I certainly saw issues over the years. I think it is wonderful that a range of learning styles and quirks can be accomodated in this kindy. (I don't believe it's actually happening for everyone, but if Bill says it is, who am I to say it is not? It might be unusual, but it's not out of the realm of possibility).

 

 

Unfortunately, I think your son's school may not be the norm. I think most classrooms teach to the middle (or there about) and expect kids to fall in line. And I think most main stream classrooms use worksheets (in addition to stations and other hands-on activities) to measure progress. This is a real "love of learning" killer for some kids - especially those who are not yet writing well.

 

 

 

I doubt anyone on this board does "nothing" with their young children (and I'm sure you're not implying that). But if I could to do it over again with my disinterested student, I would have allowed her 1-2 more years to play and explore rather than sit in a classroom. That would have been a terrible waste for my older DD who was totally engaged in learning (and from reading your posts in the past I assume is also your experience with your DS). But my younger DD just wasn't ready for reading or writing at 5 or even 6, and I think learning those skills would have been more joyous for her if she had been older. We may need to agree to disagree on this one.

Edited May 3, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Spy Car]

Bill, you are not the teacher, and you are not the parent of all of those children.

 

Let's hope so :D

 

And doing nothing with respect is not doing nothing.

 

Doing nothing is not doing nothing.

Doing nothing is not doing nothing.

Doing nothing is not doing nothing.

 

 

I keep running this through my mind, but it doesn't make sense.

 

Doing something is not doing nothing.

 

Bill

[nmoira]

I can't accept that doing *nothing* is good for any child.

Opportunities for learning needn't be contrived. There's doing nothing in an environment conducive to real child driven play (with freedom of movement, opportunity for exploration, experimentation, etc.), and there's doing nothing in an environment offering few or none of these opportunities. There's doing nothing surrounded by people who talk with you all the time and expect you to contribute to the conversation and welcome your insight, and there's being plopped in front of a TV.

 

When it comes to practical problem solving, I'll put my money on the kids who've been allowed copious quantities of real, unfettered play every time.

[LibraryLover]

Let's hope so :D

 

 

 

Doing nothing is not doing nothing.

Doing nothing is not doing nothing.

Doing nothing is not doing nothing.

 

 

I keep running this through my mind, but it doesn't make sense.

 

Doing something is not doing nothing.

 

Bill

 

We won't agree on this, Bill.

Edited May 3, 2010 by LibraryLover

[LibraryLover]

When it comes to practical problem solving, I'll put my money on the kids who've been allowed copious quantities of real, unfettered play every time.

 

Yes. Every single time. These kids are different. If one doesn't have a child who has had this unfettered play, one doesn't understand it.

[Rosie_0801]

If one doesn't have a child who has had this unfettered play, one doesn't understand it.

 

This comment is suggesting that it is all or nothing, which I don't think any of us believe.

 

It is possible to directly instruct small children on maturity appropriate topics, using maturity appropriate techniques, and still have time left over for unfettered play. I think we can all agree on that, even if we don't think it is necessary to do any of that except the unfettered playing bit.

 

It is also possible to try to directly instruct small children in topics they are not developmentally ready for. Or to try and instruct them in topics they are developmentally capable of dealing with, but using methods that are unsuitable. I think we all agree that this is unprofitable for everyone.

 

So I'm concluding that the only difference of opinion here is whether or not we want to instruct small kids in suitable topics, using suitable methods for a short time on a fairly regular schedule. This doesn't seem to be much of a disagreement since "suitable" is entirely determined by the parent and child involved and doesn't relate to what anyone else does or doesn't do.

 

Now, if anyone wants to tell me they know a suitable way of teaching my three year old who doesn't reliably speak in two word sentences yet, to read, I will laugh.

 

Rosie

[Spy Car]

Opportunities for learning needn't be contrived.

 

I agree.

 

There's doing nothing in an environment conducive to real child driven play (with freedom of movement, opportunity for exploration, experimentation, etc.), and there's doing nothing in an environment offering few or none of these opportunities.

 

Creating an environment conducive to learning (including child-led play, which I highly value) is important. Who is arguing otherwise? It is also possible to guide play and make learning fun.

 

These things are not oppositional.

 

There's doing nothing surrounded by people who talk with you all the time and expect you to contribute to the conversation and welcome your insight, and there's being plopped in front of a TV.

 

The former is not doing *nothing* it is doing *something*. It is engaging a child in an age appropriate way. Plinking them is front of a TV, that's doing nothing.

 

When it comes to practical problem solving, I'll put my money on the kids who've been allowed copious quantities of real, unfettered play every time.

 

I'd bet my money the same way. Who's arguing against "play?" Not I.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Yes. Every single time. These kids are different. If one doesn't have a child who has had this unfettered play, one doesn't understand it.

 

I don't know who you're talking to, but trust me, my kid has lots of time to play.

 

Not much time to watch TV or play video games, but lots of time to play outside on his own or with friends.

 

And he can also do sums and read. The activities are not mutually exclusive.

 

Bill

[nmoira]

 

Creating an environment conducive to learning (including child-led play, which I highly value) is important. Who is arguing otherwise? It is also possible to guide play and make learning fun.

But the point is that in a naturally stimulating environment, there's no need for the contrived experiences. I'm not saying that interested children shouldn't be exposed to direct teaching or more formal learning opportunities (and DD the Elder loudly demanded this, and I've sought to limit "school time"), but rather that these activities are not necessary for all young children. DD the Younger didn't ask for "school" until relatively recently yet she has flourished in spite of our benign neglect. I simply don't believe that there's a need for preschool or kindergarten (for children in the types of environments we're talking about), or that there's a window for, say, conceptual arithmetic acquisition (as opposed to hands-on understanding of volume can capacity and the like, as with sand and water and container play) like their is for language development. The best homeschooling advice I've ever read was something along the lines of: don't take months or years to do now that which will take days or weeks to do later.

[Rosie_0801]

I think we've come back to the OP!

 

When does a "naturally stimulating environment" stop being enough? When do we need to start with "contrived experiences?" Presumably anyone who isn't an unschooler thinks there is a line somewhere that must be crossed.

 

Rosie

[stripe]

But the point is that in a naturally stimulating environment, there's no need for the contrived experiences.

This reminds me of criticism of the Montessori method, such as this.

[nmoira]

This reminds me of criticism of the Montessori method, such as this.

Thanks for posting this.

 

I'm not terribly dogmatic either way, and I wouldn't accuse those who start early as ruining their children (assuming play is still a priority). However, I've seen enough unschooling families whose children are doing high school level math at about the same time as their age peers despite a "late start," that I also wouldn't accuse those in the better-late-than-early school of ruining their children either. :D