Is p.s. teaching concepts earlier & earlier?

[Wee Pip]

So...I'm wondering...is "old 1st grade" the "new kindergarten" and "old 2nd gr" the "new 1st gr"? It seems the same topics are getting taught younger & younger. Expectations are higher & higher.

 

A relative of ours was reading a book to my kids & I thought she was doing very well for end of 1st gr. I commented to the mom about it, and she said -oh no, she's at the bottom of her class, and her reading is far behind the rest of the class. (I didn't say this, but I was thinking - wow, my dd wouldn't have even been able to read that text last year). I felt sad; this little girl was enjoying reading and doing quite well, but everyone felt she wasn't performing well enough. I'm blown away when I hear about "regrouping" in 1st gr math and "multiplication/division" in 2nd gr. I didn't learn those concepts until a whole grade later (and I came from an exceling school system with high standards).

 

I thought my kids would do well if they were ever sent to school, but now I'm really wondering! I don't feel like I can compete at all, even though I'm a loving mom that spends a lot of one-on-one time with my children.

[genie]

It seems to be the method of choice in our country. We fall behind so many other countries academically, so we figure if we start earlier and earlier, maybe we can catch up. Yet we fail to notice that many of the highest-scoring nations don't even start their kids in school until age 7. Kindergarten used to be a fun place where you got use to the concept of being around other kids, standing in lines, etc. Then kindergarten became the place to get ready for first grade. And most recently we have added mandatory Pre-K's that are prepping the kids for kindergarten. It's CRAZY!!!!!!

 

Good gosh. Let little kids be kids and play and have fun.:rant:

 

Unfortunately, curriculum companies have to reflect this change in society due to the state standards they are compelled to match.

[Ellie]

overall, public school test scores are not improving. IMHO it's because they are introducing concepts earlier than children are ready to learn them, and they're still using methodology that has not worked in the past 50 years (i.e., sight reading/whole language instead of phonics).

 

There will always be children like your relative's who pick up on things easily, but overall, there just isn't any evidence that starting earlier is actually better.

 

Your loving-mom, one-on-one time produces far better results than mere academics, anyway. I wouldn't worry for a nanosecond about when government schools introduce academics.:D

[Myrtle]

I think there are a few ways of looking at this.

 

1. More and more concepts are being taught earlier and earlier, but they aren't necessarily going into depth with those concepts. It all looks impressive on paper though.

 

2. Standards really are being raised and "depth" is required, but the students aren't given the tools to reach the new goals. The parents have to haul the kids off to Sylvan to fill the gaps, those with advanced degrees and enough time away from work afterschool. Kids whose parents can't afford tutoring or kids whose parents don't have the educational background fall through the cracks. Kids who are on the slow end of of maturing get left behind.

 

3. The teaching really is getting better. I can find examples of this in math education. Some people think that it's impossible for a particular topic or skill to be taught to some kid at some particular age and then someone else comes along and figures out how to break it down in just the right way with just the right kind of practice.

 

4. Raising standards in one area might mean they are lowered in another. In the past there were high standards for achievement in Latin and if you look at school schedules half the day was devoted to the study of Latin and Latin literature. Now we spend that time on math and science and foreign language gets relegated to one hour per week in the lower grades and maybe one hour per day in high school. It's just not really possible to do all things in depth at once.

[CookieMonster]

So...I'm wondering...is "old 1st grade" the "new kindergarten" and "old 2nd gr" the "new 1st gr"? It seems the same topics are getting taught younger & younger. Expectations are higher & higher.

 

It absolutely, positively depends on which school district you are speaking of. Some are raising standards - or percieved markers of success - while others are lowering theirs. Every single district has their own idea of what makes for a rigorous education. They also have their own ideas about whether a rigorous education is a worthy goal.

 

And just because elementary might be hard doesn't mean the higher levels have become any more rigorous. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

 

And it could be that a few teachers have found common ground at one particular elementary school and together have raised the bar for that group of students.

 

And it could simply be the fad of the moment in this school district to do things this way.

[CookieMonster]

I think there are a few ways of looking at this.

 

1. More and more concepts are being taught earlier and earlier, but they aren't necessarily going into depth with those concepts. It all looks impressive on paper though.

 

2. Standards really are being raised and "depth" is required, but the students aren't given the tools to reach the new goals. The parents have to haul the kids off to Sylvan to fill the gaps, those with advanced degrees and enough time away from work afterschool. Kids whose parents can't afford tutoring or kids whose parents don't have the educational background fall through the cracks. Kids who are on the slow end of of maturing get left behind.

 

3. The teaching really is getting better. I can find examples of this in math education. Some people think that it's impossible for a particular topic or skill to be taught to some kid at some particular age and then someone else comes along and figures out how to break it down in just the right way with just the right kind of practice.

 

4. Raising standards in one area might mean they are lowered in another. In the past there were high standards for achievement in Latin and if you look at school schedules half the day was devoted to the study of Latin and Latin literature. Now we spend that time on math and science and foreign language gets relegated to one hour per week in the lower grades and maybe one hour per day in high school. It's just not really possible to do all things in depth at once.

 

Yes, yes, yes, and yes! Dead on. Good explanations. :iagree:

[6packofun]

It sure seems that way. I think it's so that they can start the spiral of learning and review that much sooner, but the PS system trips up by not doing each coverage of a concept real justice by teaching it *thoroughly*.

 

Our next door neighbor is a 3rd grade teacher and she said that they are doing fractions next in math. Which, in and of itself is actually fine to me (we use Singapore math for K-6 at home and it definitely introduces some stuff "early"), except that it's just a fluffy run-through of a few easy fractions like 1/2 and 1/4 which they will review many times over in the next couple of years. :confused: Why do fractions for 3-4 years when you could do it all at once WELL? It's a difficulty and a necessity in many ways for the public schools I believe.

 

Narrow and deep, NOT wide and shallow! I learned that here. LOL

[elbac]

Putting obvious variations between different school districts aside, in my experience they are requiring more in the K-2 grades than previously. However, by the time you get to the 4-6 grade level, I didn't see any significant advancement. In fact, when we pulled our dc out of ps in the 5th grade, I felt they were actually behind on certain subjects for where I remember being in the 4th grade. And I went to kindergarten half days, and I remember a nap time, snack time, and recess being included in that short time period.