Why Kindy is the New First Grade

[umsami]

Yes, I've heard this for years....but gosh, this is sad.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/01/08/462279629/why-kindergarten-is-the-new-first-grade?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160108

 

 

"The percentage of teachers who reported offering music every day in kindergarten dropped by half, from 34 percent to 16 percent. Daily art dropped from 27 to 11 percent."

[poppy]

None of that is true in my kids' school, aside from standardized testing. And standardized testing is, 3 times a year, the teacher asks each kid one-by-one if they recognize each letter.  And some of the other points don't actually seem that bad.

 

For example (limited copy/paste due to board rules).

 

• In 2010, prekindergarten prep was expected. One-third more teachers believed that students should know the alphabet and how to hold a pencil before beginning kindergarten.

"One third more" could mean anything.

• Everyone should read. In 1998, 31 percent of teachers believed their students should learn to read during the kindergarten year. That figure jumped to 80 percent by 2010.

What does "learn to read" mean? Has what it meant changed in the past 15 years?  My kid is at reading level for Kindergarten-  he 'can read' in the sense that he can read the first couple of Bob books.  He couldn't pick up the simplest chapter book and understand it.  I am going to guess that was not uncommon for kindergarten aged children in 1998, or 1988, or 1978.........  technically he can be said to match the goal "should learn to read" but c'mon.

[Junie]

None of that is true in my kids' school, aside from standardized testing. And standardized testing is, 3 times a year, the teacher asks each kid one-by-one if they recognize each letter.  And some of the other points don't actually seem that bad.

 

For example (limited copy/paste due to board rules).

 

• In 2010, prekindergarten prep was expected. One-third more teachers believed that students should know the alphabet and how to hold a pencil before beginning kindergarten.

"One third more" could mean anything.

• Everyone should read. In 1998, 31 percent of teachers believed their students should learn to read during the kindergarten year. That figure jumped to 80 percent by 2010.

What does "learn to read" mean? Has what it meant changed in the past 15 years?  My kid is at reading level for Kindergarten-  he 'can read' in the sense that he can read the first couple of Bob books.  He couldn't pick up the simplest chapter book and understand it.  I am going to guess that was not uncommon for kindergarten aged children in 1998, or 1988, or 1978.........  technically he can be said to match the goal "should learn to read" but c'mon.

 

As for your last paragraph, I was in Kindergarten near 1978.  IIRC, the requirements for getting into 1st grade were something like this:  count from 1 to 100, write your name, recite the alphabet, behave yourself.

 

We learned to read in 1st grade.

[fairfarmhand]

As for your last paragraph, I was in Kindergarten near 1978.  IIRC, the requirements for getting into 1st grade were something like this:  count from 1 to 100, write your name, recite the alphabet, behave yourself.

 

We learned to read in 1st grade.

 

Yup. My dh went to 1st in 1979. He learned to read there. K was optional and he didnt go.

[umsami]

Learn to Read has changed.  It used to be that while some kids certainly could read in Kindy, it wasn't the focus.  They would learn the alphabet, and I want to say counting was up to 20, not 100.   When DS2 was in Kindy, it was the "goal" that every child read at a level D by the end of Kindy.  Even if kids hit level D, the school may strongly recommend that they attend "reading camp" during the summer.

 

Basically, everything has gone down a level...so Pre-K is now alphabet and counting to 20, etc.

 

Thing is, when DD was in first grade, she read well....but there were definitely a good portion of her class who was just learning.  What bothers me is that they were made to feel behind even though they were at a developmentally appropriate age.    Kind of like how some kids are dx with ADHD (or informally diagnosed by a teacher) when they are just behaving like a normal 5 or 6 year old, rather than a 7 or 8 year old.  

[snowbeltmom]

Learn to Read has changed.  It used to be that while some kids certainly could read in Kindy, it wasn't the focus.  They would learn the alphabet, and I want to say counting was up to 20, not 100.   When DS2 was in Kindy, it was the "goal" that every child read at a level D by the end of Kindy.  Even if kids hit level D, the school may strongly recommend that they attend "reading camp" during the summer.

 

Basically, everything has gone down a level...so Pre-K is now alphabet and counting to 20, etc.

 

Thing is, when DD was in first grade, she read well....but there were definitely a good portion of her class who was just learning.  What bothers me is that they were made to feel behind even though they were at a developmentally appropriate age.    Kind of like how some kids are dx with ADHD (or informally diagnosed by a teacher) when they are just behaving like a normal 5 or 6 year old, rather than a 7 or 8 year old.

Exactly. And this is why many kids, especially boys, with summer birthdays are "red-shirted." K is what 1st grade was for our generation.

[Mimm]

My kids went to private school at that age so maybe this isn't a fair comparison but at the open house the kindergarten teacher confidently told us they would be reading by Thanksgiving. And they were. More than just hesitantly sounding out short vowel words. They were reading pretty fluently by the end of the year. (Bot my kids went through the same class with the same teacher, 2 years apart.) But, you know, small class sizes, awesome teachers, kids with no serious problems. But it was an expectation and all the kids met it.

[carriede]

I was in K in the 1990-91 school year. I lived in Ohio at the beginning of the year and was reading through the I See Sam books and was in the top reading group on my class.

 

In spring 1991, we moved to Florida and they were also reading the I See Sam books, but my new class was farther ahead. I caught up quickly, but I remember being disappointed that I was suddenly in a lower reading group.

 

So for me, K = I See Sam readers.

[J&JMom]

Want a laugh? Check out my kindergarten report card from 1972, Long Island NY.  Reading was not required.

[SparklyUnicorn]

As for your last paragraph, I was in Kindergarten near 1978.  IIRC, the requirements for getting into 1st grade were something like this:  count from 1 to 100, write your name, recite the alphabet, behave yourself.

 

We learned to read in 1st grade.

 

Same here.  It might have been even less than that with the counting thing.  I was in school in 1979.

[SparklyUnicorn]

A few years ago I used to send my kids to a summer Montessori "fun camp".  The instructor was a public school K teacher.  She told me she loved the fun camp because she actually got to do fun stuff like art with the kids because with all the testing she no longer had time.  I mean geesh.  The kids are now in K full time and they can squeeze in a bit of art?  I don't get it.

 

 

[Serenade]

 

 

 What bothers me is that they were made to feel behind even though they were at a developmentally appropriate age.    Kind of like how some kids are dx with ADHD (or informally diagnosed by a teacher) when they are just behaving like a normal 5 or 6 year old, rather than a 7 or 8 year old.  

 

 

Emphatic yes.

[Serenade]

Want a laugh? Check out my kindergarten report card from 1972, Long Island NY.  Reading was not required.

 

 

 

This is awesome!  Thanks for sharing.

[umsami]

J&J Mom, that is so cool that you still have that!

[SKL]

I went to KG in 1970-71 and learned to read.  Other kids my age went to other schools and didn't learn to read in KG.

 

In 1984-85 my kid sister was in KG.  They didn't teach reading in her class - actually they didn't really read in school until mid-1st grade (though my sister was reading simple books before KG).  However, her cousins in another school (same county) were reading easy readers at school in KG.

 

My kids went to a charter (public) KG in 2011-12.  Their KG started reading in the fall of that year.

 

I don't think it's strange or new or awful that reading is taught in KG.  As long as the teachers are flexible enough to work effectively with kids who are not quite ready for reading in KG, I would rather it be offered to those who are, than make everyone else wait until 1st grade or later.  I think it's stupid to waste a year or more of valuable time for those who can read or are ready to read at age 5 or so.

 

I was actually more dismayed at how much math they expected my kids to be ready to do in 1st grade.  But that could be because my kids are both more wired for reading than math.

[SKL]

Just because some things change does not mean it's worse.

 

I don't know why people believe daily art, daily music, dress-up, etc. are best for all kids age 5-6.  And as a mom of an early reader, I can assure you she would rather have been reading than doing "dramatic play" in KG.  Being able to read and understand engaging stories is not less valuable than being able to put on a costume and pretend to be somebody else.

 

A lot of the stuff they introduced as "kindergarten" was introduced to make up for the fact that some kids didn't get these things at home before they came to school, though developmentally they are more appropriate for younger ages.  Now there are many other ways to make up for the lack of these things in some homes, so why make all KG kids spend time on them?

 

My mom told me that when she was in KG (in 1950) she hated it because of all the pasting and the childish activities.  She entered KG knowing how to read and was completely bored.

[HomeAgain]

The thing that alarms me is the adhd diagnoses that have risen dramatically in the same time span.  The average age now for a diagnosis is 7, right after kindergarten.  The amount of art, free play, science, and fun have gone down as the amount of seat work has risen.  I'm *not* saying children are not adhd, I'm saying it's overdiagnosed to meet the school needs.

 

Our children haven't changed.  Our expectations have.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Just because some things change does not mean it's worse.

 

I don't know why people believe daily art, daily music, dress-up, etc. are best for all kids age 5-6.  And as a mom of an early reader, I can assure you she would rather have been reading than doing "dramatic play" in KG.  Being able to read and understand engaging stories is not less valuable than being able to put on a costume and pretend to be somebody else.

 

 

I don't know that anyone said it had to be daily, but in some cases it is not at all. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

The thing that alarms me is the adhd diagnoses that have risen dramatically in the same time span.  The average age now for a diagnosis is 7, right after kindergarten.  The amount of art, free play, science, and fun have gone down as the amount of seat work has risen.  I'm *not* saying children are not adhd, I'm saying it's overdiagnosed to meet the school needs.

 

Our children haven't changed.  Our expectations have.

 

Yeah no doubt one of my kids would have had a hellish time with sitting still all day starting in K.  And I really do not think he was hyper or extreme in his behavior. 

[SKL]

I don't understand the rush.  I really don't.

 

Kindergarten for me (1977) was only a half a day long.  We played.  We sang.  We did art.  We spent time learning the letters of the alphabet.  We picked which was bigger and which was smaller.  We counted to 100.  We had a snack.  My report card consisted of smiley faces with crowns, smiley faces, or frowny faces. 

 

And yet, I was learning calculus in high school, writing college-level term papers in high school, and taking all sorts of advanced classes in high school.

 

So why the rush now?  Why can't we let little ones be, you know, little ones?  What is the advantage to the push, push, push?

 

I don't think it's "rushing" to teach kids skills they are ready for.  Most kids today are ready for more than the ABCs, singing, bigger/smaller etc. when they enter KG.

 

The length of school days is a different issue.  Half-day KG can be academic; learning to read is not a full-time job.

[Junie]

I have a similar report card...somewhere.

 

Part of the difference between kindergarten then and kindergarten now is daycare.

 

When I was in K, I was one of the only kids who had been to daycare.  I was in daycare because my parents divorced.

 

I missed a lot of days K because my mom didn't want to drive me on icy roads.  The teacher said not to worry about it because I already knew everything that was going to be taught.

 

Now, many (maybe even most) kids go to daycare/preschool before kindergarten.  Therefore, kindergarten has become the old first grade.

[Dmmetler]

Just because some things change does not mean it's worse.

 

I don't know why people believe daily art, daily music, dress-up, etc. are best for all kids age 5-6.  And as a mom of an early reader, I can assure you she would rather have been reading than doing "dramatic play" in KG.  Being able to read and understand engaging stories is not less valuable than being able to put on a costume and pretend to be somebody else.

 

A lot of the stuff they introduced as "kindergarten" was introduced to make up for the fact that some kids didn't get these things at home before they came to school, though developmentally they are more appropriate for younger ages.  Now there are many other ways to make up for the lack of these things in some homes, so why make all KG kids spend time on them?

 

My mom told me that when she was in KG (in 1950) she hated it because of all the pasting and the childish activities.  She entered KG knowing how to read and was completely bored.

 

The problem is that the kids who can already read are still bored, because they don't need "the b says /b/" and to push two bears and 5 bears together and count them to get 7 bears.

 

In a more exploratory classroom, usually there's a place to go and read. I was in the 1970s, play based K, and there were a lot of books available-and when I ran out and needed harder ones, my teacher had no trouble with me going to the library with a note with a clock face drawn on it so I could figure out when to come back so I could get a stack more to read.

 

My DD went to an academic kindergarten that explicitly taught reading/math-and ended up doing three grade level's worth of workbooks, because she couldn't go play in the centers or just read a book when the others were doing worksheets-that wouldn't be fair. So, she would do 10 worksheets while they did 1, even though she didn't actually learn anything new from those 10.  She was a lot more bored than I was.

[Frances]

Just because some things change does not mean it's worse.

 

I don't know why people believe daily art, daily music, dress-up, etc. are best for all kids age 5-6. And as a mom of an early reader, I can assure you she would rather have been reading than doing "dramatic play" in KG. Being able to read and understand engaging stories is not less valuable than being able to put on a costume and pretend to be somebody else.

 

A lot of the stuff they introduced as "kindergarten" was introduced to make up for the fact that some kids didn't get these things at home before they came to school, though developmentally they are more appropriate for younger ages. Now there are many other ways to make up for the lack of these things in some homes, so why make all KG kids spend time on them?

 

My mom told me that when she was in KG (in 1950) she hated it because of all the pasting and the childish activities. She entered KG knowing how to read and was completely bored.

I don't think it's about what people believe, but what research has shown to be true. The kinds of activities including art, music, free play, etc that used to constitute the majority of kindergarten are developmentally more appropriate than teaching reading for most five year olds. Countries that hold off reading instruction until age seven have much lower rates of reading problems. But it certainly doesn't mean early readers have to be bored in kindergarten. Done correctly, kindergarten should include lots of free choice time and be full of a variety of books, including audio books, thereby giving early readers plenty of time to read if they so choose.

 

And while I certainly agree that being able to understand and engage with stories at five is very valuable, I don't think you need to read them yourself to do so. In fact, most readers at that age will be able to listen to stories with far more advanced vocabulary and language structure than they will be able to read.

[ErinE]

Yup. My dh went to 1st in 1979. He learned to read there. K was optional and he didnt go.

I learned to read in first grade. I remember I was so excited about the reader book.

[JustEm]

As for your last paragraph, I was in Kindergarten near 1978. IIRC, the requirements for getting into 1st grade were something like this: count from 1 to 100, write your name, recite the alphabet, behave yourself.

 

We learned to read in 1st grade.

I was just talking to a friend last night about this. Her dd is in preschool and they just had a meeting with the teacher about kindergarten expectations. What you list above is what the schools expect a child already knows before entering kindergarten in our districts.there was a long list of other things but those were all on the list as well.

 

The idea that a just turned 5 year old knows all those things is beyond me. Yes, many do alreayd know hose things or are capable of learning them prior to kindergarten. But many will developmentally not be ready at all and where does that leave them when they enter kindergarten unprepared ( why is being prepared for kindergarten even a thing?)

[Junie]

I was just talking to a friend last night about this. Her dd is in preschool and they just had a meeting with the teacher about kindergarten expectations. What you list above is what the schools expect a child already knows before entering kindergarten in our districts.there was a long list of other things but those were all on the list as well.

 

The idea that a just turned 5 year old knows all those things is beyond me. Yes, many do alreayd know hose things or are capable of learning them prior to kindergarten. But many will developmentally not be ready at all and where does that leave them when they enter kindergarten unprepared ( why is being prepared for kindergarten even a thing?)

 

This exactly!

 

And in some states, Kindergarten isn't required.  So some of these kids are going into first grade with no schooling and others are already reading as well as I was at the end of first grade.

 

Really, it's unfair.

 

 

edit: because ready and reading are not the same word.  sigh.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Junie

[Laurie4b]

 

 

I don't think it's strange or new or awful that reading is taught in KG.  As long as the teachers are flexible enough to work effectively with kids who are not quite ready for reading in KG, I would rather it be offered to those who are, than make everyone else wait until 1st grade or later.  I think it's stupid to waste a year or more of valuable time for those who can read or are ready to read at age 5 or so.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, that is not what happens. The teachers are pressured to have every child reading by the end of kindergarten. They are pressured and that trickles down to the kids. Of course, kids who are ready should be exposed to reading. But they should not be made to feel behind if they aren't ready yet. 

 

I have seen kindergarten students come home from school utterly exhausted, worn out mentally, emotionally, and physically. Then they have an hour of homework, including tasks such as writing a full paragraph. I know a very bright little girl who began having nightmares on Sunday nights. 

 

I substituted in a public school and saw what was expected of K and 1st graders. It was ridiculous and the children were stressed. 3-5 paragraph essays were required in first grade. The kids didn't even know how to make all their letters correctly yet. 

 

I actually teach reading to kindergarten students in a private school. We present the option to all of them but don't push even a little bit. 

 

As someone who also tutors children with reading disabilities, I can say that the main problem by the time they get to me is the beliefs they have developed about themselves and their abilities. Overcoming those negative beliefs is a much larger hurdle than actually remediating the reading. I am very concerned that current educational practices are increasing the number of children who think of themselves as "dumb" and have decided that they don't like school not even because they have disabilities but because their developmental time table is a little slower. (I am not an advocate of waiting till age 10 to teach reading, but expecting it in K is too early for many children.) I think it will backfire. 

[luuknam]

And in some states, Kindergarten isn't required.  So some of these kids are going into first grade with no schooling and others are already ready as well as I was at the end of first grade.

 

I don't know how often kids are entering 1st grade without doing K and without being ready for 1st grade (by current standards). Here K isn't required either, and last year we got a "welcome to kindergarten" letter for our youngest with enrollment paperwork for the 2015-2016 school year. It said to call them if we weren't planning to enroll him. So, I called, and guess what? I just received another "welcome to kindergarten" letter for the same kid, for the 2016-2017 school year. So, apparently the district assumes that if you choose not to enroll your kid in K that you're redshirting him. I probably could call them and say "hey, based on his age and your cut-off date, he's entering 1st grade in the 2016-2017 school year", and they'd probably be fine with that. But, the "go with the flow" approach to electing not to enroll the kid in K at 5 would be that he'd be redshirted and would end up doing K at 6 in 2016-2017 instead of 2015-2016 with the other kids his age.

 

I was in full day K4 in 1988 and K5 in 1989 and we were not expected/taught to read at all. We were taught to sing the alphabet song. They started basic phonics/reading in first grade. They didn't even teach us to write our names in K. And since everyone went to full day K4 and K5, there wasn't a "more kids go to pre-K now" thing. They just thought arts and dressing up etc were more valuable.

[MistyMountain]

The kindergarten I went to in the 80s did not teach reading at all. My report card was similar to the one posted above. My kids would have been 1st graders though not kindergartners because of different cut offs if they went to school then. So for them nothing would be different in the expectations of reading.

Edited January 9, 2016 by MistyMountain

[Guest olga.tr.kz.ru]

I'm sorry I guess I don't understand completely.

Do most kids in US read by the age of 6? And does it mean being able to read simple readers with one word/ sentence per page or more difficult books?

When I went to 1st grade in former Soviet Union in 1990, children didn't learn letters before 1st grade (mostly age 7). The same is still true in Turkey where I'm now, although first grade starts a year earlier.

 

Is it that American kids are taught to read 1-2 years earlier? Why is that?

[maize]

I'm sorry I guess I don't understand completely.

Do most kids in US read by the age of 6? And does it mean being able to read simple readers with one word/ sentence per page or more difficult books?

When I went to 1st grade in former Soviet Union in 1990, children didn't learn letters before 1st grade (mostly age 7). The same is still true in Turkey where I'm now, although first grade starts a year earlier.

 

Is it that American kids are taught to read 1-2 years earlier? Why is that?

Well, I was told by the neuropsychologist who evaluated my 5.5 year old recently that he is behind in reading skills because he does not know all his letter sounds. It is disturbing to me that a five year old could be considered behind in reading, but yeah, that's the standard...

[poppy]

I know school didn't used to expect kindy kids to read, but my recollection is that it's something parents worked with their kids on prior to age 7 in the US for my own childhood (born 1975).

 

 

Unfortunately, that is not what happens. The teachers are pressured to have every child reading by the end of kindergarten. They are pressured and that trickles down to the kids. Of course, kids who are ready should be exposed to reading. But they should not be made to feel behind if they aren't ready yet. 

 

I have seen kindergarten students come home from school utterly exhausted, worn out mentally, emotionally, and physically. Then they have an hour of homework, including tasks such as writing a full paragraph. I know a very bright little girl who began having nightmares on Sunday nights. 

 

I substituted in a public school and saw what was expected of K and 1st graders. It was ridiculous and the children were stressed. 3-5 paragraph essays were required in first grade. The kids didn't even know how to make all their letters correctly yet. 

 

I actually teach reading to kindergarten students in a private school. We present the option to all of them but don't push even a little bit. 

 

As someone who also tutors children with reading disabilities, I can say that the main problem by the time they get to me is the beliefs they have developed about themselves and their abilities. Overcoming those negative beliefs is a much larger hurdle than actually remediating the reading. I am very concerned that current educational practices are increasing the number of children who think of themselves as "dumb" and have decided that they don't like school not even because they have disabilities but because their developmental time table is a little slower. (I am not an advocate of waiting till age 10 to teach reading, but expecting it in K is too early for many children.) I think it will backfire. 

 

That's crazy. I don't know if this is normal, though. 

My 2nd grader has 20 minutes of homework a night. 

I also don't know about the dyslexia bit, either.  My daughter is dyslexia.  Dyslexia kids thinking of themselves as dumb sure isn't anything new.  One book we love here is Thank you, Mr. Faulkner, about a girl who knew she was dumb until a teacher realized she had a reading disability. It's a true story about the author's own experience in school - had to be late 70s, early 80s?  Her reading issues weren't recognized until 5th grade. That diagnosis comes earlier now often, which is a blessing to the kids with those issues.  And it's likely the emphasis on reading is part of why we're able to identify dyslexia earlier so often.

 

[Guest olga.tr.kz.ru]

Ouch. So, even the neuropsychologist considers the reading requirements normal?

My 5,9 dd is considered an early reader, and she just started decoding ...

[maize]

Ouch. So, even the neuropsychologist considers the reading requirements normal?

My 5,9 dd is considered an early reader, and she just started decoding ...

Yeah, I think it is crazy. Especially since my five year old is actually pretty good at decoding and blending for the sounds he knows (the neuropsychologist commented that he did well with blending) he just doesn't know all the letters and their sounds. Edited January 10, 2016 by maize

[snowbeltmom]

I don't think it's "rushing" to teach kids skills they are ready for.  Most kids today are ready for more than the ABCs, singing, bigger/smaller etc. when they enter KG.

 

The length of school days is a different issue.  Half-day KG can be academic; learning to read is not a full-time job.

That may be true, but I think a big reason most kids are ready for more than the ABC's when they enter KG is because they are older when they begin KG than what was typical for our generation.  

 

An all-boys private school in my area has a  March 31 cut-off date for KG, no exceptions. When my husband attended this school, the cut-off was the end of September. My boys are friends with quite a few kids who go to this school who will be 19 years old when they graduate high school.  

 

The public schools in my state have the option of implementing either a September 30th or August 1st cut-off date.  My public school has the latter.  I am friends with a number of teachers in my area.  Many of them think that Common Core is not age appropriate and that the cut-off date will eventually be moved up to June 1.  Teachers in my neck of the woods  have been encouraging parents for at least the past 15 years who have boys with a summer birthday to wait a year before beginning them in K.  

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm sorry I guess I don't understand completely.

Do most kids in US read by the age of 6? And does it mean being able to read simple readers with one word/ sentence per page or more difficult books?

When I went to 1st grade in former Soviet Union in 1990, children didn't learn letters before 1st grade (mostly age 7). The same is still true in Turkey where I'm now, although first grade starts a year earlier.

 

Is it that American kids are taught to read 1-2 years earlier? Why is that?

 

Yep they are taught to read sooner.  But oddly that fact doesn't seem to translate to performance later on when compared with other countries.  So why they keep doing it is beyond me.

[SparklyUnicorn]

That may be true, but I think a big reason most kids are ready for more than the ABC's when they enter KG is because they are older when they begin KG than what was typical for our generation.  

 

 

No clue how old you are, but that's definitely not the case in my experience.  I graduated when I was 17.  They didn't change the cut offs since I went. 

 

I have heard of some people holding kids back sometimes, but I honestly do not think it is typical everywhere.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Come to think of it, my younger kid will graduate at 17 because he has a June birthday. 

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Not to mention now they even work on reading skills in many preschool programs.  Here they have full day pre k.  Lot of academics with that too. 

 

 

[Frances]

Yep they are taught to read sooner. But oddly that fact doesn't seem to translate to performance later on when compared with other countries. So why they keep doing it is beyond me.

I feel this way about so much of the way we educate young children in this country. So often we know what works, but we do the opposite. We constantly hear about how behind US students are in math, but instead of doing what we know works, we continue to try different methods and curriculums, rather than having actual math teachers teach math starting in elementary school. No set of standards and no amazing curriculum is ever going to make up for the fact that the majority of elementary school teachers do not having the expertise to provide the foundational math education students need.

 

Similarly with reading. We know that a language rich environment with lots of exposure to books and conversation with adults is the most important thing for language and reading development, and that many children come to school very lacking in these areas. Every child, whether reading or not, benefits from a language rich environment. As long as early readers have plenty of free choice time available to them during the school day during which they can read if they choose, I simply don't understand the advantage of teaching kindergarteners to read. Waiting means fewer children will struggle and most will catch on and advance more quickly if instruction is delayed.

[poppy]

Not to mention now they even work on reading skills in many preschool programs.  Here they have full day pre k.  Lot of academics with that too. 

 

There is that sort of pre-K here, too, but it's not the public program. The public program, and lots of privates, are play-based.  The academic pre-ks advertise themselves as such and tend to be more expensive. I have a friend whose kids was reading Magic Tree House books (Annie and Jack) by age 4 and she attributed it to the preschool.... my 2nd grader still can't tackle those books.  I see NO value in early reading unless it is child-directed, personally. I'd be upset if the public program emphasized academics and reading since there is no evidence of value in it.

[Laurie4b]

I know school didn't used to expect kindy kids to read, but my recollection is that it's something parents worked with their kids on prior to age 7 in the US for my own childhood (born 1975). I got to read Green Eggs and Ham to my first grade class probably around 1962 because I was the only kid in the class who could read. Kids were expected to learn beginning books, but not to read anything more than See Spot. See Jane. See Dick. Kindergarten was not offered by public schools. I went to a 2 hour private kindergarten. Part of that time was a nap, LOL! (I hadn't napped for years.) I remember drawing birds. No academic pressure.

 

 

 

That's crazy. I don't know if this is normal, though. It is in our area.

My 2nd grader has 20 minutes of homework a night. 

I also don't know about the dyslexia bit, either.  My daughter is dyslexia.  Dyslexia kids thinking of themselves as dumb sure isn't anything new.  One book we love here is Thank you, Mr. Faulkner, about a girl who knew she was dumb until a teacher realized she had a reading disability. It's a true story about the author's own experience in school - had to be late 70s, early 80s?  Her reading issues weren't recognized until 5th grade. That diagnosis comes earlier now often, which is a blessing to the kids with those issues.  And it's likely the emphasis on reading is part of why we're able to identify dyslexia earlier so often. I'm not sure what you're saying here. If it sounded like I was saying dyslexia is worse, I was not. I was saying kids without dyslexia are ending up with the same negative thoughts about their abilities as kids with disabilities typically have. 

 

[Frances]

I know school didn't used to expect kindy kids to read, but my recollection is that it's something parents worked with their kids on prior to age 7 in the US for my own childhood (born 1975).

 

 

 

That's crazy. I don't know if this is normal, though.

My 2nd grader has 20 minutes of homework a night.

I also don't know about the dyslexia bit, either. My daughter is dyslexia. Dyslexia kids thinking of themselves as dumb sure isn't anything new. One book we love here is Thank you, Mr. Faulkner, about a girl who knew she was dumb until a teacher realized she had a reading disability. It's a true story about the author's own experience in school - had to be late 70s, early 80s? Her reading issues weren't recognized until 5th grade. That diagnosis comes earlier now often, which is a blessing to the kids with those issues. And it's likely the emphasis on reading is part of why we're able to identify dyslexia earlier so often.

But what about the research that shows smaller percentages of kids with reading problems in countries where reading instruction is delayed until age seven? It would seem that trying to identify true reading problems in four or five year olds would be difficult because many of the children are being asked to do something for which they are not developmentally ready. However, if such tests do exist, I would have no problem with them being given before first grade, as long as research shows that early intervention works.

[Professormom]

Same here. It might have been even less than that with the counting thing. I was in school in 1979.

Ditto for me in 1979.

[Professormom]

I don't understand the rush. I really don't.

 

Kindergarten for me (1977) was only a half a day long. We played. We sang. We did art. We spent time learning the letters of the alphabet. We picked which was bigger and which was smaller. We counted to 10. We had a snack. My report card consisted of smiley faces with crowns, smiley faces, or frowny faces.

 

And yet, I was learning calculus in high school, writing college-level term papers in high school, and taking all sorts of advanced classes in high school.

 

So why the rush now? Why can't we let little ones be, you know, little ones? What is the advantage to the push, push, push?

Again, ditto to all of it. I could read in kindy, but as someone mentioned up thread, it wasn't required for anyone who couldn't.

 

I wonder if anyone has done a study on the kindy up leveling and high school down leveling. It seems like more is expected of kindergarteners but less is expected of the high schoolers. That would be interesting.

[SparklyUnicorn]

There is that sort of pre-K here, too, but it's not the public program. The public program, and lots of privates, are play-based.  The academic pre-ks advertise themselves as such and tend to be more expensive. I have a friend whose kids was reading Magic Tree House books (Annie and Jack) by age 4 and she attributed it to the preschool.... my 2nd grader still can't tackle those books.  I see NO value in early reading unless it is child-directed, personally. I'd be upset if the public program emphasized academics and reading since there is no evidence of value in it.

 

No here that is the public program (technically).  Technically meaning you can get in through the lottery, but it is paid for by public funds . There is a push to have this available to everyone.

 

Although looking at this again, they offer full time and part time programs. 

[J-rap]

When I was in kindergarten, it was half day and reading was definitely not taught!  It was more like very traditional nursery school.  We learned days of the week and a little about telling time, but I don't remember doing much else besides singing and playing, snack time, nap time, and having the teacher read to us.

 

My sister is a kindergarten teacher and her day centers around teaching the kids how to read.  It is really pushed.  She tries to make the day fun for them too.

 

I think more students are ready to be taught to read in kindergarten these days.  Maybe our culture has encouraged parents to work with them at home earlier.  Or, in more and more families, both parents work and kids are in pre-school, so pre-school has taken on the role of kindergarten.  

 

I guess it's just one of those slow changes that are a result of the times, with pros and cons like most other changes.  I don't mind the early reading part, but childhood is so short as is.  I like children to have those early years to just play and explore, and without the push to keep up or meet certain standards.  

[ktgrok]

This thread has actually given me the confidence I needed to slow down/level down my daughter's kindergarten work this year. She was getting frustrated with some of it, and we're going to slow down/level down a bit. Thanks :)

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

This thread has actually given me the confidence I needed to slow down/level down my daughter's kindergarten work this year. She was getting frustrated with some of it, and we're going to slow down/level down a bit. Thanks :)

 

I felt a bit freaked with my first because ya know I had no clue what I was doing.  But by the second I wasn't freaked anymore and we did far less.  I don't notice any difference several years later.

[SKL]

My dad went to KG in the late 1940s and they didn't teach reading in KG.  He was one of the older kids with a January birthday.  He is dyslexic and starting later didn't save him in any way from feeling badly about himself.  It is debatable whether earlier intervention would have helped him more than waiting to start.

 

I think the bigger issue is enabling KG teachers to accommodate the vast differences among kids of KG age.  It does not really matter whether they give more time to reading instruction or preschool skills or neither, as long as the environment encourages all kids to develop as they are ready.

 

I keep hearing people complaining about reading being taught in KG, but then usually it comes out that at the end of the year, many kids can't read and it isn't a big deal.

 

I mean, we would also like all KG kids to learn to share and be polite etc., but in reality there are kids who finish KG without having mastered those skills, and we just deal with it.  Why is reading viewed any differently?  Are there kids who have been refused entry to 1st grade because they could not read chapter books?  Or KG teachers fired because less than 100% of their students could read by May?