Better Late Than Early -- What do you think?

[Jenny in GA]

I would also like to know this!

 

Ya know, I'm gonna start a new thread ...

[garddwr]

FWIW, I had a chance to talk to Jane Healy a few years back (we were both speaking at the same conference, so were at the Speaker's table-talk about feeling out of my league) and her views are much the same-that there is a difference between providing opportunities for the child who is demanding learning and pushing/pressuring a child when they're not yet ready-the former is giving the child what they need, while the latter is not. I was very, very relieved to hear her say that, because at the time I had a 5 yr old who had befriended one of the Sisters from Silver Lake college on the first day of the conference, and was spending every evening learning Latin from several elderly Nuns!

 

I agree with this, it doesn't make sense to intentionally hold a child back from what they are seeking. And some children do gravitate towards reading or math (or Latin!) at an early age. I think in general if parents are responding to their child's readiness and needs they won't go wrong in either direction--pushing too early or delaying too long. It is when we buy into a particular philosophy, a set of "rules" (whether they be of the "don't teach anything until the child asks to learn" or the "every three year old should read or they will miss out on their potential" variety) so far as to neglect what is actually going on with our child that we can run into trouble.

[sarah.]

Ester,

 

No, love I wasn't reacting to your words, it's me knee jerking into a somewhat prickly defensive explanation of how I got from my start point to here and what that process included. I have a tendency to get prickly because as I'm sure you can imagine I spend a fair bit of time with people who not unnaturally tend to get a bit sniffy when some cheeky foreign type starts criticising their country, even if they were making the same criticism not five minutes earlier.

 

The America thing wasn't aimed at implying your words meant something they didn't, it was an explanation as to why I let an initially private conversation overflow onto a public board, and I needed to explain because I was the one in breech of etiquette.

 

I can't read German, but wouldn't mind hearing the gist of what it had to say.

 

I've read quite a bit about why PISA is allegedly unfair on X country or Y country. The obvious impact of reunification in Germany, the vastness of the States and its volume of immigration, the social issues in the UK that impact learning opportunities and effective teaching, and the outcry here in Italy that "Anglo Saxon" style tests disadvantage Southern European students in terms of format and emphasis on "competencies".

 

IMO almost every country can (and does) claim extenuating circs for not coming out of the rankings smelling of roses. However I find there tends to be a touch of over egging in the issues underlined, quite a lot of special pleading and reworking of the data. In order to "prove" a point rankings tend to be rejigged by enthusiastic amateurs in a way that *over compensates* for the issue of a single country's perceived disadvantage, while failing to apply the same sort of rejig to reflect the *unique* disadvantage of all the countries. Which makes you wonder the degree to which face saving gets priority over a more self critical and internally honest reading of the findings.

 

Have a look at what was done here to "prove" how the PISA test disadvantaged the States and as a result gave a massively skewed result placing the States down low instead of up near the top. I can't be the only on with raised eyebrows as to why the States is given a differing criteria in terms of students whose results are excluded AND why no other country's unique social/cultural issues were also factored in. I'm no statistical expert but the claimed ideal of rendering PISA rankings "fair" seems to have been left at the side of the road as soon as the twiddling with included data resulted in making the States look better.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-EMpadQx4hM/TRKVzaSdWnI/AAAAAAAAAYs/26q8mk1dT3M/s1600/PISA.jpg

 

 

 

The major complaint I've heard here about Italian students being disadvantaged in the test as I said, is said to be down to PISA employing an "Anglo Saxon" style of the exam and the testing reflecting the "Anglo Saxon" focus on competence rather than knowledge.

 

This is what the PISA reading exam looks like. It's a PDF, you have to scroll forward to about page 19 to start seeing the actual questions.

 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/23/41943106.pdf

 

I can see immediately why your average Italian student struggles with it after years of mainly oral interrogations to test their rote learning and the occasional worksheet style test. They'd struggle because they are being asked to engage, think, apply what they know, using competencies assumed to have been acquired. That would be a bit of a shock to them when what they are more used to in terms of testing is being told what to learn by heart, and then regurgitate it on cue, digestion optional.

 

I don't think twiddling with the test will be ever be enough to compensate for the inefficiencies and lack caused by the sort of educational methodology where parrot fashion learning is given priority. I honestly think the people who suggest its in the main the test not the education at fault here in Italy, are wishful thinkers.

 

 

This author and I don't have interchangeable views. I haven't read her book just skimmed lots of interviews, but I think we part company at the very least where she seems to present teachers as innocent victims of their own inadequacies in the classroom, whereas I see them as more active participants in their slumping standards. If you have a quick read of the books blurb here

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/LItalia-dellignoranza-declino-società-ebook/dp/B006AZZ1NA

 

I think what she says is a more realistic idea than "the test is unfair" as to why Italy fails to rank or score well.

Edited March 23, 2012 by sarah.

[sarah.]

Jenny in GA

 

I had a look for your new thread, but couldn't find it.

 

 

I have a link that gives a brief review of studies focused on the length of the school day and educational attainment.

 

http://www.onlineuniversities.com/10-telling-studies-done-on-longer-school-days

 

What I don't know is if the studies took into account the "hidden" hours of a school day. I know when I was living and working in Thailand plenty of my students would leave school and go in a variety of directions to crammers. Mates in Korea and Japan reported the same, but with bells on. Allegedly they spent half the lesson peeling sleeping, exhausted children off their desks. Mind you that was more than a decade and a half ago, so perhaps things have changed considerably.

 

Certainly here our middle school day may look short on the surface. My son's lessons started at 7.50 and ended at 1.37 (that is not a typo) with a single 10 minute recess. So yes that looks shorter than for example the British school day where the kids finish far later in the afternoon.

 

However the lack of breaks throughout the day and the sheer volume of work that got sent home creates a different reality in terms of number of hours dedicated to academics. I had less homework during my final GCSE year than my son was being given in first year middle school. Plenty of kids here also have regular after school tutoring in one or more subjects on top of their homework.

 

Unless studies explicitly state that they take into account the cultural/educational norms in terms of after school schoolwork I'm not sure that like is really being compared to like.

 

I do think that systems with better focused objectives reflected in teaching and lesson content, less time wasting, quality staff will produce better results in less time. That most likely will explain those counties with fewer hours dedicated to schoolwork but decent results. But they may be performing with in a cultural and social context that cannot be reflected elsewhere, which makes importing and replicating their educational model, and expecting the same results, an unlikely solution.

[ktgrok]

Back to the "early or late" discussion, my feeling is that learning to read and do math is similar to learning to walk. It is fun when they walk early, but no amount of "coaching" or educating will MAKE them walk earlier than they are supposed to. So why bother? At the same time, keeping them from walking when they are ready is cruel.

[stripe]

Here is the spin off thread about middle school

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=361379

 

And here is an interesting clip of Margaret Warner of PBS in S Korean schools. Worth watching. Notice their excellent and natural use of English. This is from Jan 2011.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june11/koreaschools_01-21.html

[Jenny in GA]

Jenny in GA

 

I had a look for your new thread, but couldn't find it.

 

 

I have a link that gives a brief review of studies focused on the length of the school day and educational attainment.

 

http://www.onlineuniversities.com/10-telling-studies-done-on-longer-school-days

 

Thanks. Off to go read it.

Sorry the new thread was hard to find. It's this one.

Jenny

[Pen]

Back to the "early or late" discussion, my feeling is that learning to read and do math is similar to learning to walk. It is fun when they walk early, but no amount of "coaching" or educating will MAKE them walk earlier than they are supposed to. So why bother? At the same time, keeping them from walking when they are ready is cruel.

 

 

Is it the same? Is learning to read or do arithmetic something that will simply come to a child at some point unless they are held back from it?

 

Personally, I doubt that.

I think more children "take naturally" to walking than to swimming.

 

I think more children "take naturally" to swimming than to riding a bike.

 

I think more children "take naturally" to walking than to reading or to doing arithmetic.

 

I think more children in a society where children bike, will want to put in the effort to learn to do that, than will want to put in the much greater and longer term effort that it takes to be a competent reader, etc. Some children, I think, do have an easy natural ability to pick up reading and arithmetic. Some may even find reading and arithmetic far easier than walking...but I, personally, don't think they are in the majority.

 

At the same time, I would say that for a number of the children who were with my son in Waldorf school which goes for "late" (but as in around age 8, not late as in age 14) academics, it seems to make little difference and by high school they get pretty much caught up with their peers who began earlier. For some, though, perhaps especially those who are 2E, the "late" start seems to hurt.

[ktgrok]

Is it the same? Is learning to read or do arithmetic something that will simply come to a child at some point unless they are held back from it?

 

Personally, I doubt that.

I think more children "take naturally" to walking than to swimming.

 

I think more children "take naturally" to swimming than to riding a bike.

 

I think more children "take naturally" to walking than to reading or to doing arithmetic.

 

I think more children in a society where children bike, will want to put in the effort to learn to do that, than will want to put in the much greater and longer term effort that it takes to be a competent reader, etc. Some children, I think, do have an easy natural ability to pick up reading and arithmetic. Some may even find reading and arithmetic far easier than walking...but I, personally, don't think they are in the majority.

 

At the same time, I would say that for a number of the children who were with my son in Waldorf school which goes for "late" (but as in around age 8, not late as in age 14) academics, it seems to make little difference and by high school they get pretty much caught up with their peers who began earlier. For some, though, perhaps especially those who are 2E, the "late" start seems to hurt.

 

I should clarify...I don't mean the analogy is that both are picked up on the child's own initiative. I meant that no amount of teaching will force the skill before the child is ready to learn it.

[Pen]

No. I have finally heard some talk about "getting him some help" but there's nothing definite that I am aware of. This is the type of Mama who has an opinion about everything and never does anything wrong, iykwim. She is also very religious and is "trusting" that G*d is going to take care of the situation even if she does nothing.

 

It is a horrible mess and exactly the sort of thing that gives homeschoolers a bad name. :glare:

 

I'm sorry to hear that. Of course, children also "fall through the cracks" in regular bricks and mortar schools. But it is sad. I thought maybe if he would be going to a bricks and mortar school his situation would be noticed and there might (maybe, perhaps) be some help. But a lot of special needs children in regular schools also get passed over, or noticed, but not the help needed.

 

On this, I have heard that one (of many) differences between Europe and USA education systems is that in USA there tends to be a "wait and see" attitude early, and then help given at the most minimal level possible (partly to try to keep children "mainstreamed") whereas that in Europe much help is given earlier and then they try to wean the children off of it, and that the latter seems to give better results. But I have only heard this. Maybe the posters from U.K., Italy and elsewhere following this thread would have more knowledge about that.

[Ester Maria]

I really want to take this conversation to the private sphere, but one point you brought up:

]and the outcry here in Italy that "Anglo Saxon" style tests disadvantage Southern European students in terms of format and emphasis on "competencies".[/color]

There is something to it' date=' though.[/font']

In the past I have given the sample PISA exam questions to my two older girls, the older of whom has just turned 15, so they were both a bit below the actual age of taking PISA. Then we had a conversation about it.

Now, you must understand that we do not do exclusively "school at home", i.e. what I do with my children is not a direct copy-paste of any school system in particular that we would follow by the book, but rather a mishmash of various things and traditions. It is, however, largely modeled after the Italian system, but with my own modifications (read: improvements).

 

My children scorned the exam :lol:, their major complaint being the exact same "Anglo-American bias" that you mention. They, too, thought the test was inadequate in the modality of taking it, in the way questions were formed, and that it did not test concrete knowledge, but vague 'competences'. They also thought it was possible to guess one's way out (which would not be possible to do with a different format of the test and a more knowledge-based approach), although I must always take their opinion with a grain of salt, both being quite academically precocious, so to few of them peers the same things are "obvious".

 

Throughout the years, I examined them the Italian way, all the way through, on the 10-point scale. I do strictly knowledge-based written exams, which are prerequisites for oral exams, and then on oral exams once we have "confirmed" the basis of concrete knowledge, I do other stuff (cross-curricular, interdisciplinary connections, application, all the other stuff that are a part of the learning process, but given the basics have been acquired and demonstrated).

 

I think the MAJOR issue with the US school system is that it is not knowledge-based, but application-based. It emphasizes "higher order thinking skills" (what I mentioned earlier: non-linear connections outside the very same field, interdisciplinary reasoning, application to different kinds of situations, etc.), but at the expense of the solid base. You cannot "manipulate" an information you do not HAVE, when the context becomes complex enough (educationally, way past PISA stage).

The fault of the Italian school system, when things are not done properly, is that it stops on the "lower order thinking skills" kind of teaching / testing: the reproduction becomes the point, the wider understanding is compromised by being trapped inside schematic thinking, and the whole of educational process boils down to learning the book and the lectures.

However, not always it stops on the "mechanics" and "fluency in mechanics". Sometimes it goes much further than that - but the mechanics is a part of it and a certain level of concrete knowledge and fluent skill is expected, while not being the ultimate point. That is the kind of education I remember. :D "Concrete", knowledge-based, with a clearly spelled out program and expectations, but with the very upper range of grades incorporating ALL of the "competences" / application / divergent connections. That was the profile of an excellent, distinct student: a knowledge base integrated with the rest... although the rest was always perceived as a more of an individual thing, rather than a system thing. The point of the system was to provide the base more than to deal with the ways you can spread out from there and connect things - that was up to you. First things first.

 

That is where the element of "home digestion" kicks in. It is a matter of mentality. You send a child to a school not for the *totality* of their education, but to get (i) get presented a structured base of knowledge; (ii) exercise educational breadth in order to get a generalized learning ability (which can later be applied to a variety of fields), and (iii) all of that to be done in a context where it is formalized. That is how it always presented to me. The point of school was NOT to "teach" you, strictly speaking - in terms of imparting the knowledge, thinking of all sorts of creative ways in which it may click with you, making sure every student is approached individually in ways unique to them... all of these are the Anglo-American inventions, not ours :D, in the context of a model of the school where school goes above and beyond "business only". That is why intervals / recess are cut down to a minimum, why extracurriculars typically take place outside of schools, why the actual digestion goes home with the student, rather than be the part of the process. School is the formal structure, not the education. It makes perfect sense once you present it in your mind that way.

 

The problem is in efficiency because the teaching methods have remained, mentally, in the era of "reading from the book" and material being presented in a less interactive way. (We did have discussion periods, though. High school was very interactive, but maybe that was a mix of the age and the actual approach.) There I would like to see more diversity. I would, however, not like the school day to get longer due to revision / individualized approach / and all the "extras". I do think schools should be "business only", and that the actual responsibility for learning is up to students and families, not school. I would just like schools to do their own part - which, in my view, is probably limited as regards your view - better. In a more efficient way, with less time wasting, less reading from a book, less artsy and craftsy knowledge, better spaced out breaks (though they do exist in some schools, you know) to aid concentration, and cutting all the distraction to the minimum. That is what I did at home, so of course, I think that is how things ought to be done. I managed to teach my children both the Italian and the American "standard" base of knowledge every year, amplified, and with the early classics instruction, within that same school day. Of course, one on one type of education can never equal a classroom situation, but the inefficiency is still rampant, IMO. I tend to LIKE the Italian inefficiency in some general lifestyle things, but when it comes to schools, it tends to irk me. The US schools are horribly inefficient too, but unlike the Italian schools, they often have no clue what they want in the first place (no clear scope and sequence, clear benchmarks and goals, spelled out base of knowledge for promotion and failure, etc., except on the individual school levels in some cases), so it gets even "better" there.

 

It is not the educational tradition and the baggage that is the problem. It is that it is not imparted well, because the newer generations of teachers have received a woefully inferior education themselves, and it is also partially the university reform. Liessman's book explains it perfectly - I do not have it here, though, nor my notes. Will summarize based on what I remember, but next time. Probably in that same PM response that I am taking ages to finish.

 

I do not think the Italian system needs to become any more "anglo-americanized" than it already is. I think it needs to find its own way within its own tradition, which is knowledge-based, text-based, linear, from the bottom up, rather than some other learning traditions, as attested by the style of the higher level scholarship as well. And when done well, it is a legitimate academic tradition which has a LOT to offer, in a unique perspective. The same goes for Austria and their upheaval over PISA. We should both be dealing with failing standards - regardless of PISA and not specifically prompted by PISA either - within our own tradition.

 

 

ETA: Just a clarification, to prevent confusion. I find a BIG difference between a general attitude of taking things home for "digestion", without much of a burden of a formal proof of that digestion / mastery - and burdening kids with insane amounts of homework. I am actually, in a way, principally opposed to much formal homework at all, I think most of what passes for homework should not be compulsory types of activities at all. I do think however that the element of studying needs to go both ways, not to be expected to be "done" at school - school is a starting point and a cohesive element, structurally, not the be all end all of students' learning.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Ester Maria

[podoba01]

I agree with the "hogwash" comment.

 

IME reading is a very difficult skill to learn which takes a lot of hard work and perseverance. Reading starts to be enjoyable only after a child has become proficient at this skill. The argument of not teaching children to read because it may hurt their love of learning is backwards IMO. I think the better approach is to teach them the skill of reading so that they can appreciate, enjoy, and love learning.

 

My kids didn't enjoy learning to read because it was extrememly difficult work. However, now they all love reading because it has opened up a whole new world to them. I don't have a lot of time to read aloud to them, but they are not limited by that since they can pick up whichever book they like and read it for themselves. Going to the library and loading up on books to check out is an activity they look forward to. I would feel sad for them if I had deprived them of the opportunity to learn to read early and experience so many wonderful books.

 

:iagree:

[TranquilMind]

Shari: Children are developmentally ready to read at different times. Granted. However, when an extreme delay is evident for no reason relating to intelligence, that is a HUGE red flag that something is going on. Maybe it is nothing, but maybe it is their eyesight or dyslexia or something else that has to be diagnosed so that it can be addressed.

 

Quite true (sentence emphasis mine).

 

However the question is what constitutes an "extreme delay".

 

Granted, I'd be really concerned with 10 and up. But under that, they are just very different, and some strong finishers start late. But, of course, I'd check out all reasonable possibilities you mention.

 

I feel pretty strongly about this because I have a friend IRL who is a great fan of the Moores. Her ds has eye problems and other neurological issues, and also, I believe, a severe learning disability. This kid starts high school in the fall and cannot read.

 

Yes, this would be of extreme concern to me.

[Iucounu]

It's obvious that there is some age floor for each child, below which it's impossible to read.

 

However there is no support for an extrapolation from this that all children learn to read at the moment they're biologically ready, and not before, and that hence training cannot help children to read earlier. In fact, that really makes little sense in light of all the evidence linking parental involvement, access to reading resources, etc. to early reading. I'd also guess that the prevalence of early reading is on the rise decade-to-decade.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Iucounu

[SonshineLearner]

My son was doing phonics at 6 and learned to really read at 8. Maybe he could have read, but I didn't make him. Could he sounds out words? yes! But he considered it hard.

Same thing with math. He could multiply 3 numbers x 1 number in his head.... but I waited a while to show him how to write it. It took a couple days... but I didn't have to work for too long.

I think waiting till they're ready is ok, as long as you don't see issues that are cropping up. :)