Study: Kids in Kindergarten need Rigor

99 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

1. Darren L says:

   February 14, 2014 at 12:34 pm

   Wow…can we just let kids be kids for a little while!

   Reply
2. ira shor says:

   February 14, 2014 at 12:38 pm

   maybe we should nullify child labor laws and send these lazy 5-yr olds down into the mines to teach them a lesson…

   Reply
   • Dawn Hoagland says:

     February 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm

     That is not so far from the truth. Back during Clinton’s presidency when he tried to push his School to Work agenda and Goals 2000, congress was told to revisit the child labor laws to allow younger children to go directly to work (instead of staying in school all day) doing manual labor for corporations as if this was good experience for our children.

     Reply
   • Robert D. Shepherd says:

     February 14, 2014 at 8:10 pm

     I think that Newt Gingrich suggested that during his last, comic bid for the Presidency.

     Reply
3. Duane Swacker says:

   February 14, 2014 at 12:46 pm

   Is there a link?

   Reply
   • Duane Swacker says:

     February 14, 2014 at 12:49 pm

     He, He, it was in my email:

     http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2014/02/kindergarten_is_too_easy.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2

     Reply
4. KrazyTA says:

   February 14, 2014 at 12:53 pm

   What’s old and wrong is new and right again!

   Very young children are simply miniature adults.

   The past is the future.

   Except, of course, that the self-styled “education reformers” and their edubully enforcers and accountabully underlings are reserving that for OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN.

   For THEIR OWN CHILDREN, well, just gaze with fear and trembling at what kind of summer camp some of their kids will have to suffer through at Cranbrook:

   “The Summer Theatre School, our oldest summer program, presents classic theater skills like character acting, lighting, dance, voice, costuming, set design and other stage crafts. The Theatre School operates from Cranbrook’s beautiful Greek Theater grove, an outstanding full sized stone replica of a classic outdoor Greek theater setting nestled in a mature pine forest. Evening outdoor theater productions attract ample crowds from neighboring communities.”

   Link: http://schools.cranbrook.edu/programs/theatre

   I call on all viewers of this blog to alert Michigan authorities to these abusive practices tout de suite.

   The horror of it all!

   😎

   Reply
   • FLERP! says:

     February 14, 2014 at 1:09 pm

     And Clarence lives at home with both parents, and Clarence’s parents have a real good marriage.

     Reply
   • Nimbus says:

     February 15, 2014 at 8:41 am

     Who controls the past, controls the future; who controls the present controls the past

     Reply
5. FLERP! says:

   February 14, 2014 at 12:53 pm

   It’s not clear to me that our schools would be worse off if there were no such thing as “education research.”

   Reply
6. elsieberry says:

   February 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm

   And often children need to sing, dance, listen to stories, read stories without thinking about analysis. Too often, meta cognition is over rated; feelings are underrated. In my classroom, the very best response is an enthusiastic, ” Again! Again!”, which would receive a quantitative value of zero on a Common Core aligned assessment. A-ha moments cannot be forced,formulated, or replicated!

   Reply
7. Cindy says:

   February 14, 2014 at 1:12 pm

   Found this same book at a local store- Kindergarten Test Prep Common Core:

   Reply
   • Dienne says:

     February 14, 2014 at 3:36 pm

     Thanks – you’re helping with my weight loss plan. I just lost my lunch.

     Reply
   • Louisiana Purchase says:

     February 14, 2014 at 6:22 pm

     Horrific. I can’t believe that people think that this would be a good thing.

     Reply
   • neanderthal100 says:

     February 14, 2014 at 6:37 pm

     Now I have seen it all..
     Sigh..How sad!

     Reply
   • KrazyTA says:

     February 14, 2014 at 11:29 pm

     Don’t anyone suggest that it can’t get any worse…

     Read Bill Gates in USA TODAY “explain” CCSS:

     Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2014/02/13/bill-gates-why-the-united-states-really-needs-common-core-standards/

     It would all be so funny if the joke weren’t on us.

     😎

     Reply
8. Mark Collins says:

   February 14, 2014 at 1:15 pm

   It’s hard to be polite or civil; or even non-violent when I read posts like these. We’ve really lost our way. Rigor for 5 year-olds? That rod. I know what do and who to use it on.

   Reply
   • Duane Swacker says:

     February 14, 2014 at 2:28 pm

     Make sure the rod has a plug!

     Reply
9. Dienne says:

   February 14, 2014 at 1:16 pm

   As seems to be sadly typical these days, many of the commenters have better understanding than the author of the article. The actual research isn’t really saying “kindergarten is too easy” in the way that the article is putting it. The study basically looks at should kindergarteners learn basic content or advanced content? Well, if those are the only too choices, it’s pretty obvious that kids aren’t going to learn as much if you only present basic information that they may already know. Obviously most kids will learn more if they’re exposed to new information/skills rather than the same thing over and over again (which probably bores the pants off of most kids, the same as it does most adults). The research, however, completely avoids the idea of should we even teach content? Maybe letting kids play and explore and discover the “content” for themselves that they’re interested in is better than direct instruction of either “basic” content or “advanced” content.

   Reply
   • denise widen says:

     February 14, 2014 at 4:54 pm

     LIKE x 200, especially the self-directed content piece…

     Reply
10. Joanna Best says:

    February 14, 2014 at 1:16 pm

    Children learn what they live.

    Discovery, wonder, imagination, thinking, problem solving all come from play. I put my money on that, not rigor. For five year olds anyway.

    Reply
11. tbryant15 says:

    February 14, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    PreK is next. I recently turned down a writing assignment because the publisher wanted me to write a handwriting book for PreK. . . and they wanted 4-year-olds to sit at a desk and practice formal, regimented writing–something many 4-year-olds are not physically able to do yet. I submitted a sample lesson that included fine and gross motor activities, phonemic awareness, letter recognition, center activities, etc. The publisher turned it down. I turned down their alternative. Might be time to change careers??

    Reply
    • concerned mom and teacher says:

      February 14, 2014 at 10:36 pm

      It’s already happening…just look at New York State’s Common Core Standards for PreK. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/common_core_standards/

      I teach in a NYS public school that houses our K and PreK. One of my PreK colleagues was telling me that she wants to give a presentations to parents on how they can help their 4-year-olds develop the fine motor skills for writing…even though it’s not developmentally appropriate, but New York State CCSS require it. This teacher has a son with special needs who received Occupational Therapy and she has some interesting exercises for developing those fine motor skills. However…is this really why we need universal PreK?

      Reply
      • Nimbus says:

        February 15, 2014 at 8:49 am

        Concerned mom,
        That is why NYSED has thrown Piaget out the window and now focus on Vygotsky’s theories. They have moved beyond pesky developmental stages.
        http://www.engageny.org/resource/deputy-commissioner-wagners-february-2014-network-team-institute-speech

12. Jen B says:

    February 14, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    Remember this article the next time the topic of Universal Pre-K comes up and everyone cheers it on – this is the direction it is intended to take.

    Reply
    • FLERP! says:

      February 14, 2014 at 2:27 pm

      The De Blasio plan states that NYC’s UPK model will implement standards-based instruction aligned with the Common Core. In theory, that could be perfectly fine, particularly in the hands of experienced pre-K instructors. But I’m very skeptical about how well it can work work at the “community based organizations” that would be getting huge wads of cash under De Blasio’s plan.

      Reply
      • Jen B says:

        February 14, 2014 at 2:41 pm

        Just like K-6 Common Core Instruction is perfectly fine in the hands of experienced elementry school teachers? What happens when the Pre-K tots don’t test well and all the Preschool Teachers are found ineffective? OK good luck with that.

        Not sure why people think what has happend to regular school instruction won’t happen to Pre-k. Bye bye pretend kitchen and blocks…

13. Ben Carson says:

    February 14, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    Article from Politico on Rebellion to School Reform
    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=59B01312-B1D3-415D-AC22-B06564EFE6BF

    Reply
14. Robert D. Shepherd says:

    February 14, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    The deformers have the same view of the proper function of schooling that the grey Puritan fathers had, the one’s who wrote in the Alphabet of the first textbook published on these shores, The New England Primer:

    F
    The idle Fool
    Is whip’d in school.

    And in one edition:

    B
    Tell B for the beast at the end of the wood
    Who ate all the children when they wouldn’t be good.

    Reply
    • Robert D. Shepherd says:

      February 14, 2014 at 2:02 pm

      cx: ones, not one’s, of course

      Reply
15. lesliegleans says:

    February 14, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    I’m not an mean person but I’d like to show them where they can stick that “rigor!”
    I have a Kindegartner right now – a young Kindergartner because he turned 5 in June & started school in August.
    The last thing he NEEDS is more pushing!

    Reply
16. lesliegleans says:

    February 14, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    I’m not a mean person, but if like to tell them where they can stick that rigor!
    I have a Kindergartner currently – a young L at that – he turned 5 in June & started school in August.
    The last thing he NEEDS is more pushing!

    Reply
    • NY teacher says:

      February 14, 2014 at 3:24 pm

      What kind of parent are you? By the time my daughter was five, she could speak and write in Mandarin Chinese, quantify the geometry of dolphin bubble rings, and had summited Everest without oxygen while carrying a Nepalese sherpa on her back.

      Reply
      • Bilgewater says:

        February 14, 2014 at 5:29 pm

        My pre-school son designed a line of corduroy evening wear while building suspension bridges in my backyard. We need rigor!

      • NY teacher says:

        February 14, 2014 at 6:17 pm

        I read in a journal that the Norwegians have trained their fetuses to count to ten by ones, twos, and fives! We are still falling behind.

      • Robert D. Shepherd says:

        February 14, 2014 at 8:12 pm

        Well said, Bilgewater!!! Freaking awesome!!!

      • Robert D. Shepherd says:

        February 14, 2014 at 8:14 pm

        OK, mine didn’t carry the Sherpa. Perhaps we should have started the test prep at 6 mos.

      • Michael Fiorillo says:

        February 15, 2014 at 11:32 am

        Building bridges?

        Speaking Mandarin?

        Meh!

        My kids can do forty hours of test prep per week, and shop till they drop on weekends, losers!

    • NY teacher says:

      February 15, 2014 at 3:32 pm

      Give those kids a cigar!

      Reply
17. Randal Hendee says:

    February 14, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    “Claessens has investigated a wide-range of issues surrounding child development and public policy including an experimental work support program and how achievement and socioemotional skills at school entry relate to later school achievement.”

    That’s a quote from the Amy Claessens bio on the University of Chicago website. If you narrowly define achievement as high test scores, the results of the cited study are fairly predictable. The reasoning behind increasing “advanced” academics in kindergarten ends up being completely circular.

    If you define school achievement more broadly, and you add in a bunch of other desirable qualities, such as empathy, feelings of worth, self-confidence, personal satisfaction, the capacity to take action on behalf of others, the ability to create things and work with people, and so on, it isn’t obvious that kindergarten teachers should put more emphasis on pure academics.

    Maybe the “socioemotional” aspects of this professor’s work (her dissertation topic: “The Development and Determinants of Academic and Socioemotional Skills in Middle Childhood”) could shed more light on the subject. How does she define and measure achievement? I’ll have to read the study to find out, but I can guess. In any case, academic success doesn’t equal real-life success. (Working definition of real-life success: the proven capacity to have a positive impact on the lives of others).

    Defining achievement as student test scores is the bedrock of “education reform,” and it’s a horrible idea. You don’t have to go far for proof. A few thousand “academic high achievers” (many of them young, with little teaching experience) are now in the real-life business of oppressing children, diminishing the teaching profession, and demolishing public education by implementing the so-called “reforms.” They don’t actually know what they’re doing, but hey, their test scores were high enough to get into good colleges. And they had what it takes to land good jobs in a bad economy.

    To compile a list of these academically talented numbskulls, all you have to do is read this blog. (Interesting that most of them have been funded at some point by a Harvard dropout-turned-monopolist who, when he talks about education, has trouble stringing together two credible sentences.)

    You can learn about the effects of an overly academic childhood by reading John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography. It’s an extreme case, obviously, but it’s a lesson that shouldn’t be ignored.

    Reply
    • Duane Swacker says:

      February 14, 2014 at 2:43 pm

      Thanks, Randal as I was wondering what the article meant by “achievement” and, yes, it is test scores, which in my mind invalidates any conclusions from the start.

      Reply
18. NY teacher says:

    February 14, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    I have to agree whole heartedly with the idea that 5 year olds just aren’t pushed hard enough in school. My only issue is that the common core LIMITS the RIGOR to math and ELA. For god’s sake why can’t we have them balancing chemical equations, speaking fluent Latin, and interpreting hieroglyphics. No reason we don’t introduce civil engineering, psychology, and political science into the curriculum too. And why they’re not composing symphonies in music class or developing their welding skills (metal sculptures of course) in art class should be embarrassing to us as a nation. And phys-ed -come on gym teachers of America get with the rigor program – its never too early to start triathlon training or some life-long leisure activities like ice climbing or white-water kayaking. And cripes, if we really want to develop grit and determination why the heck to we serve them prepared food – on trays, with, can you believe it, eating utensils. Can’t the cafeteria get with the rigor program too? We should be developing their hunting-gathering skills instead of pampering them – there’s no reason they couldn’t fashion their own fish hooks out of bone or learn how to braid rope for snare traps. And bus rides – to and from school. Seriously any five year old with an ounce of grit would be offended if we offered them a ride to school. And let’s face it, walking lets them off the grit hook just a little too easily, hopping or crawling to school would really teach them a life lesson in persistence. Finally, is it ever too soon for your PPPPPPPPPPPPPPSAT exam?

    Reply
    • FLERP! says:

      February 14, 2014 at 2:39 pm

      “And bus rides – to and from school. Seriously any five year old with an ounce of grit would be offended if we offered them a ride to school. And let’s face it, walking lets them off the grit hook just a little too easily, hopping or crawling to school would really teach them a life lesson in persistence.”

      For several years, my children took a bus and two subway trains to elementary school. Running up and down stairs to catch the trains, standing for the whole trip, and then walking a quarter-mile from the last stop to school, about a one-hour trip total. The upside is that they’ll actually be telling the truth when they tell their children about how difficult it was for them to get to school when they were kids.

      Reply
    • Old Teacher says:

      February 14, 2014 at 2:41 pm

      Those survival skills may be much more important soon if the rheeformers have their way. How do you bubble in the correct way to catch a fish versus whatever works in the real world? I’ll take my fish fry done in an unorthodox manner over a Pearson approved standard answer.

      Reply
    • Randal Hendee says:

      February 14, 2014 at 2:59 pm

      NY teacher:

      I scoff at your namby-pamby proposals. Every one of those tasks could be mastered by a sufficiently prepared preschooler. The biggest challenge to overcome in prepping for these reasonable levels of three- and four-year-old achievement lies in establishing research-based methods for breaking the will of the two-and-a-half-year-old. If we teach these toddlers to say “yes” to achievement (instead of their natural tendency to repeat the word “NO,” over and over), then the road to academic success will be smooth. By the way, if a child has not learned how to fabricate his own “grit hook” by age five (and learned to place himself on it without being prompted), his prospects for future success are grim indeed.

      Reply
      • NY teacher says:

        February 14, 2014 at 3:16 pm

        “. . . establishing research-based methods for breaking the will of the two-and-a-half-year-old. ‘

        I hear that in North Korea this has already been accomplished. Now were behind them too.

        My sincere apologies for misunderestimating the potential of our toddlers. I guess I’m just on old softee; I blame on some left over habits developed during the long forgotten self-esteem era. Good work Hendee!

      • Robert D. Shepherd says:

        February 14, 2014 at 8:15 pm

        No excuses! Tests for tots!

    • AlwaysLearning says:

      February 14, 2014 at 4:22 pm

      NY teacher—I was saddened to learn that in my grandson’s kindergarten class there are no longer water and sand tables, and kitchen and dress up areas and building blocks and toys. I remember these stations were some of his Dad’s favorite memories of kindergarten. He did bring home a CC math worksheet that his Pa was helping him with. Pa who has an MBA , was helping him fill out the worksheet. As I listened from the other room, I realized that he was telling him incorrectly how to fill out the answers. I guess Pa will have to go back and get a PhD. to help him.

      Reply
      • NY teacher says:

        February 14, 2014 at 4:40 pm

        Always Learning
        You sound like another self-esteem softee who just doesn’t get it.
        Its all about developing grit, determination, and perseverance.

        And don’t worry the memories will still be there long after the pain.
        Think of the fantastic memories being formed by the emotions of frustration, confusion, self-doubt, and mental anguish. Your grandson will never forget their kindergarten experience. Instead of water and sand tables and play areas they will have terror filled flash-backs of math worksheets, endless homework sessions, and bench-mark testing.

      • AlwaysLearning says:

        February 14, 2014 at 5:05 pm

        Wow –who knew. I wonder what Robert Fulghum author of All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, has to say about all this!

19. Marie Kielty, Early Childhood math consultant, NAEYC Kindergarten Interest Forum facilitator says:

    February 14, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    Duane, thank you for the link to the article. I used it to read the entire article.

    The authors Amy Claessens and Mimi Engel are two of the co-authors of the seminal document “School Readiness and Later Achievement” published in Developmental Psychology in 2007. The research showed that it is the math that children know in kindergarten more than the reading that predicts their success by the middle grades. The research was done by thirteen researchers in nine universities in three countries including Northwestern (where Amy Claessens and Mimi Engel where at the time), Columbia, and Princeton and three more in the US, two in Canada, and one in England.

    The authors state that teachers spend “more time on literacy than math” and Early Childhood teachers are not as confident in math as in literacy. This is true.

    Diane, the authors do not state that rigor means less play. In fact, they state just the opposite, “making a reatively small change would not further subract from the time kindergarteners want and need for other important areas such as social emotional learning and physical education”.

    Rigor in math in kindergarten includes being sure children have the concept of cardinality (that the last number said in counting is the quantity). To us adults that is obvious. It is not to some young children. This has implications when children add. Do they begin with the last number and add on or do they count again from one? Rigor also includes the concept of subtizing (recognizing small numbers without counting, such as, those on dice or diminoes). Knowing these cioncepts lead to mental math. How many of us have seen children in grades three and four and older counting on their fingers to add or subtract? These chidren do not have mental math skills..

    Rigor does not mean pushing down first grade content. It means going in-depth. It means being aware the the trajectory, the sequence of learning, for number, It is in the National Research Council publication “Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood: Paths Toward Excellence and Equity” pages 127 to 173. This publication references the research of Claessens and Engel mentioned above. The principal author was Greg Duncan.

    Reply
    • Duane Swacker says:

      February 14, 2014 at 3:14 pm

      De nada.

      Reply
    • Joseph says:

      February 14, 2014 at 5:15 pm

      Rubbish. Math in kindergarten or problems in Junior High school?, the brain is elastic and does not follow a Darwinian time line. Children begin to understand space and time around 2nd grade. That is why they play. They need caring observation, not Nurse Ratchette to analyze their future from what they do in kindergarten. I understand if they pick their nose, that affects their social studies abilities in HS.

      Reply
    • Randal Hendee says:

      February 14, 2014 at 6:01 pm

      Does their research say anything about whether these concepts can be learned experientially rather than through the sort of direct instruction that may not be appropriate for kindergarteners? Is completing worksheet after worksheet really a good use of a five-year old’s time? Are standardized tests?

      I believe that rigor for young children is just a bad idea. The justifications for it are circular, in the sense that the conclusion that a child needs a certain type of math instruction in kindergarten is based on the premise that the child will need to complete a related task on a test a few grades later (whether or not a particular child, in either grade, may be ready to attain that skill or not!). If you accept the premise that a seven-year-old absolutely needs to learn mental math (which may not necessarily be true), it doesn’t logically follow that a five-year-old needs direct instruction and paper and pencil practice in order to show proficiency in the precursor concepts. Again, kids differ in the degree to which they’re ready for the concepts and in the ways in which they are likely to acquire them.

      Looked at this way, “rigor” for young children precisely IS the pushing down of tasks and skills to lower and lower grades, to children who are less and less likely to be able to handle them. That’s one reason the Common Core Standards (and the way they’re being implemented) are so bad for the lower grades. Kindergarteners are being required to distinguish between fiction and nonfiction (more appropriate for the middle grades). First graders are asked to discuss the literary elements of a story (something that used to be a big part of ninth grade English). Middle grade kids are being asked to do the equivalent of literary criticism.

      What in the world for? So they can do better on harder tests later on? That is circular reasoning. It’s reductive, and not a valid approach to planning a sequence of learning. (The importance of a set sequence of learning, though rarely questioned, is itself open to debate.)

      Reply
    • Chris in Florida says:

      February 14, 2014 at 7:11 pm

      Marie you are clearly several steps removed from real classrooms and real teachers with real students. Let me enlighten you. I’ve been on the front lines in New York and Florida for the last 20 years.

      “Rigor” is the latest, meaningless buzzword used by the various and sundry reformers to define everything that is wrong with teachers, students, and public schools. It is a hateful word with no real meaning but indicating something that is more challenging in some undefined way.

      “I can’t tell you what rigor is but I know it when I see it!” say the mindless and ill-tempered drones that do walk-throughs in classrooms all over the country, marking down all the offenses against rigor that they supposedly observe on their clipboards and tablets.

      Rigor is most likely owned by Bill Gates since it features in the offal produced by Charlotte Danielson and has been aped by every researcher hoping to jump on the edupreneur bandwagon.

      The toys and the joy were stripped from my 1st grade classroom years ago. I sneak them back in. Recess went away this year because we are an “F” school and poor children of color who have difficulty speaking English clearly have no right to play or exercise when everything in their lives must be scaled up in rigor for test-taking.

      The whole house of cards is built on the meaningless and harmful testing empire produced by the pseudoscience of psychometry. There is a war going on and if we who teach and those who support us prevail all of this testing, rigor, walk-throughs, VAM, etc. etc. evil will be eradicated forever.

      Kindergarteners do NOT need more rigor. They need much more time with snails and grasshoppers and Play-Doh and dolls. They can and will learn cardinality and counting and suiting and everything else they need to know through play and exploration if teachers guide them rather than imprison them with the false and harmful idea of “career and college ready rigor” nonsense.

      Maria Montessori knew that over a hundred years ago. It is a condemnation of us all that we choose to forget and overlook that.

      Shame on you. And shame on these “researchers” for supporting the juggernaut of anti-child, anti-play, anti-living educational reforms.

      Reply
20. Preeti Ratnam says:

    February 14, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    I wonder if we try Satyagraha method of Mahatma Gandhi it would work?
    Mahatma Gandhi called to stop buying clothes from the occupants and use hand-span clothes instead. Can we GET RID OF COMPUTERS in the schools? Use age-old methods of teaching instead.The computer makers will go away then. (May be they could go to Haiti. Arne was interested in testing there.) You could tell me that computers are very useful. English fine clothes were also very nice. But they used hand-span. And English left India. Will Pearson also leave back to UK? If he can’t run his tests on Computers?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha
    http://www.mkgandhi.org/faq/q17.htm

    Reply
    • gitapik says:

      February 18, 2014 at 9:07 am

      You know, I really like that idea. What’s interesting about it is that the perpetrators of this “reform” (which happens to include a lot of tech) sneer at the pencil and paper. As though it’s going back to the days of the dinosaurs. Sneer and fear.

      That’s an excellent analogy, Preeti.

      Reply
21. Arabella says:

    February 14, 2014 at 3:27 pm

    I can hear the Pearson, Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Rhee, interviews everyone ready with the no substance business plan to tell teachers new ways to harm our little ones, oh no its called rigor and test preparation . We need to fight back. It will never stop and we will have generations of dysfunctional adults, it is all part of the Wall Street approach, from the cradle to the grave and not meant in a good way

    Reply
22. Preeti Ratnam says:

    February 14, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    Reply
    • KrazyTA says:

      February 14, 2014 at 11:33 pm

      Preeti Ratnam: I prefer Albert Einstein’s approach—

      “If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales.”

      😎

      Reply
      • Preeti Ratnam says:

        February 15, 2014 at 1:25 am

        I know, just put that as another example that poped-up when I was browsing the other K test-prep posted above. I feel very bad for New York small kids. Funnily this particular test-prep had absolutely raving reviews by the readers. One lady who put 5 stars even exclaimed that it is a must have for pregnant ladies.,. no joke … very seriously.

        I think fairy tales are better, but not just that, it is very important for small kids to spend lots of time in the nature, visit farms and meet the animals, and wonder in the forest, and meet the sea…

      • Robert D. Shepherd says:

        February 15, 2014 at 2:11 am

        Krazy, Preeti

        yes, yes, yes, yes, yes

    • gitapik says:

      February 18, 2014 at 9:09 am

      I thought this was a joke at first.

      Reply
23. Karen Smith says:

    February 14, 2014 at 4:00 pm

    Richer content means more learning for all kids; this seems like a useful finding to me. It’s an impeccably researched paper, done by the foremost young scholars in their field. I predict their work will be enormously influential.

    Reply
    • Chris in Florida says:

      February 14, 2014 at 7:14 pm

      If so then what a sad commentary on the state of educational “research” and the filed of psychology. We are indeed doomed.

      Reply
24. Mark Collins says:

    February 14, 2014 at 4:49 pm

    Think pharmaceuticals. That’s the future. Pharmetuicals.

    Reply
    • Robert D. Shepherd says:

      February 15, 2014 at 2:12 am

      you are probably right

      Reply
25. denise widen says:

    February 14, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    The brain research about the 4-7 year old brain says that the following activities are best for kids in this developmental range: 1. DOING (meaning touching real and varied materials, real objects to arrange, imagine and wonder about, sort, invent story and language with friends) 2. MOVEMENT: Combination of language and movement builds the proprioceptive sense and brain body integration 3. Use of photographic images, specifically, pictures of real things to enhance concept development in the absence of real life enrichment, to balance out all of the “pretend” reality kids see in video games and on television and 4. Rich, rich language and vocabulary modeling and practice (as these young children’s receptive language ability often exceeds their expressive language). I WILL NEVER LEAVE DEVELOPMENTALLY PRACTICE AT THE ROADSIDE at the expense of the child. It amounts to cruelty and perhaps abuse, because they can never regain that time, or that window into their brain development. It can never be “fixed” if the opportunity to give them what is natural is excluded at the expense of something ridiculously misaligned to their development. Standards can be taught with these key findings about the developing brain in mind.

    Reply
    • Robert D. Shepherd says:

      February 15, 2014 at 2:12 am

      yes, let’s call it what it is: abuse

      Reply
      • tbryant15 says:

        February 15, 2014 at 9:00 am

        Yes, abuse.

26. Joseph says:

    February 14, 2014 at 5:07 pm

    Kids are pushed hard enough just going to school. Their sense of “play” is vital to brain development, or else they will become psychopaths or Common Core publishers.

    Reply
27. Joseph says:

    February 14, 2014 at 5:56 pm

    Hey, we live in a world of forced feeding and enhanced interrogation techniques. Are we gonna let these Pre K kids push us around?

    Reply
28. tbryant15 says:

    February 14, 2014 at 6:51 pm

    PreK is next. I recently turned down a $$ writing job. The publisher wanted a handwriting book for 4-year-olds. I submitted a sample that included letter recognition, phonemic awareness, center activities, music, book connections, gross and fine motor development activities, etc. The publisher turned it down, saying “we” need to get 4-year-olds ready for the Common Core. They asked me to write a book of seat work, 161 pages of handwriting practice. They even used the word “rigor” when explaining to me what they wanted. I told them I had to sleep at night. Might be time to find a different line of work.

    Reply
    • retiredbutmissthekids says:

      February 15, 2014 at 3:46 am

      Bravo, tbryant15! That being said, someone might start a group for recent college grads—“Write for America’ (WFA)–who will write exactly what they are told to write, & for much less money!

      Reply
      • tbryant15 says:

        February 15, 2014 at 8:58 am

        It is happening on its own. Too many times I am asked to edit a text or test that was obviously written by someone who has a) never been in a classroom, b) never spent time with children in the age group s/he is writing for, and/or c) is new to educational publishing and all its “considerations.” Earlier this week I edited a math test written for third graders. The readability level when I received it was tenth grade! And the publisher was one step away from printing it. I can only assume that the in-house editor also fell into one of the groups above. I work solely freelance, and more often than not, my “boss” is a 24-year-old. I am not claiming that young adults are not intelligent enough, but there is something to be said for experience.

29. Sally Orme says:

    February 14, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    While I completely agree with those who say that kindergarten has gotten too academic at the shortsighted expense of social/emotional learning, the headline in EdWeek is misleading. As two commenters above have stated the research article says nothing about “rigor” nor does it take a stand on play vs. academic work. That was not the research question they were trying to answer. What it says is that all students, i.e. those with strong skills at the start of K and those without, would learn more in the time teachers currently spend on “basic” math and reading if they taught more advanced concepts. They say that the thinking asked of children is what is too easy and that most already have the skills taught.

    It isn’t about worksheets or cutting “play” time, but about investigating concepts of quantity and playing with geometric shapes vs. just counting out loud and identifying numerals. It’s about discussing the content of a story and making the connection between letters and sounds vs. practicing writing letters of the alphabet. They are describing what any rich preschool curriculum includes (well maybe not the phonics). The former is boring and decontextualized; the latter engaging (when done well) and in context.

    BTW, the students in the study were all in kindergarten pre-NCLB.

    Reply
    • Joseph says:

      February 14, 2014 at 7:26 pm

      skills? concepts? How about Grimms’ fairy tales. Did Grimm write these for skills and concepts? Fairy Tales go much deeper and it opens up a special world for children’s imaginations. There are no skills and concepts in the imagination.
      I was talking to a 2nd grader the other day who said that, when he goes to heaven he wants to live in a waffle house, since he loves waffles. Is that a teachable moment for skills and concepts? If we don’t appreciate the imagination early, there may not be one later, which is the source of creativity and maybe even caring and empathy.

      Reply
      • retiredbutmissthekids says:

        February 15, 2014 at 3:51 am

        And, Joseph, I think–in the name of adding more “rigor” to the Pre-K curriculum–the ORIGINAL, uncensored Grimm’s fairy tales should be taught. There would be an extra, added bonus to this–we could determine which children possess “grit.”

30. Dee Dee says:

    February 14, 2014 at 9:20 pm

    I don’t understand drilling info all year into a Kindergartners head when you could teach the same info in a short period two years later.

    Reply
31. Bonnie Lesley says:

    February 14, 2014 at 9:50 pm

    I had exactly the same response as you! More rigor, indeed! Kinder classes look more and more like 2nd grade. So many people do not understand than small children need to learn through play.

    Reply
32. Amy Louis says:

    February 14, 2014 at 10:26 pm

    Diane, didn’t you subject your own children to testing and even test prep at age 4 to get them into Dalton?

    Reply
33. Marie Kielty, Early Childhood math consultant, NAEYC Kindergarten Interest Forum facilitator says:

    February 14, 2014 at 10:30 pm

    I agree with Karen, Diane and Sally Orme. Randal, the authors were not talking about DI, Direct Instruction, Rigor does not mean pushing down tasks and skills to lower grades. For some people it does, but that is not what the article is about.

    Chris in Florida, I have been in the front lines also for more than twenty five years, I retired from Chicago Public Schools in 2005. I am now doing consulting, PD and training for teachers and parents. One year as a kindergarten teacher I had 42 children in a mobile for a month before a new room opened up and I went down to 30. We were like sardines in a can. And I tried and was successful as much as possible to use DA practices. Homework was required by the school. So my homework was to listen to a story read by a parent or older sibling and tasks like “Tell how many steps you go up to get into your house or apartment.” How did I know the homework was done? The children had to give an oral report of two sentences. At the beginning of the year the parent or sibling wrote the title of the story on the page that came back to me. A child that I taught in preschool and again as the math coordinator when she was in first, second, and thrid grades was shot to death in a drive-by shooting at her tenth birthday party. It made the headlines in the Chicago Tribune. The last four yeasrs before I retired I was the math coordinator in a PK to Grade 3 school . The classroom was in the basement. It had no door on it, overhead pipes that leaked, and glass block windows (like bathroom windows) I rarely used worksheets even with second and thrid graders. We played math games or cards to develop a math skill. Every child was tutored during a three month period. By spring students who had not had a turn to be tutored were begging me when was it going to be their turn to come for tutoring. The other half of the day I taught each class once a week on a topic the teachers asked for and it was not a prep period so they could leave the room. It was a deminstration lesson of how to teach a topic.

    “Rigor” as a buzzword is not my vocabulary. I am against standarized testing. I am in favor of parents opting out of testing. I am against worksheets in kindergarten and most of first grade. I am deeply concerned about what is happenig to our profession.

    Many of my generation and even much younger were taught math as an algorithm, porcedures to get correct answers, not the concepts behind the procedures. In Illinois there is no endorsement in the teaching of matrhematics below the middle grades. And Early Childhood (PK to grade 3) is foundational for math. All further math is dependent on those skills.

    The Common Core math standards for kindergarten leave out patterns and classification (algebra for young children as defined by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics), and the standards for measurement and graphing are mushed together. The Common Core standards for Language Arts in kindergarten are almost impossible to reach. They belong in first and second grades. There were no Early Childhood professionals involved in their writing.

    Reply
    • Chris in Florida says:

      February 15, 2014 at 5:25 pm

      Marie I will be the first to tell you that things have changed drastically in classrooms and school districts in the last 8 years since you retired. Your defense of “rigor” in Kindergarten mathematics instruction plays right into the reform narrative and forcing the untested and inappropriate CCSS on primary grades, unwittingly, perhaps.

      The battle lines have been drawn and those who support, even partially, the reforms and use their language are by default supporters of those reforms which are closing schools, ending the jobs and careers of public school teachers, and destroying the profession of public school teaching.

      We all need to pick a side and fight like hell for our beliefs. The unions and teacher support organizations have shown us what happens when we try to meet in the middle or compromise with these reformers — you get co-opted and bought off with Gates money and end up working against those you are supposed to represent.

      We can’t have it both ways.

      Reply
34. concerned mom and teacher says:

    February 14, 2014 at 10:46 pm

    Marie, I totally agree. Now take a look at the PreK Common Core Standards in New York State. Makes you wonder about the push for universal PreK.
    http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/common_core_standards/

    Reply
    • Robert D. Shepherd says:

      February 15, 2014 at 2:14 am

      that it does! what a subversion of a noble goal that would be!

      Reply
35. Robert D. Shepherd says:

    February 15, 2014 at 2:08 am

    The word rigor seems to have been borrowed by the Rheformish from logic and mathematics, where it refers to the characteristic of being confirmable by an algorithmic proof-checking procedure. In the Rheformish tongue, the term is used to give a pseudoscientific air of obviousness and inevitability to whatever pontification the Rheformish speaker happens to indulging in, as though the Rheformer’s claims were as inevitable and incontrovertible as Euclid’s proof of the infinitude of primes.

    The word is also used as an all-purpose stamp of approval, as getting back to fundamentals and gold standard were during previous Rheformish invasions of the classroom. The Rheformish are nothing if not officious. They love to stamp and label and approve and disapprove things. This is quite an obsession among them, and they have developed several systems of numerology for indulging this inveterate passion, including high-stakes summative tests, value-added measurements, and A-F letter grades for whole schools.

    But the most common meaning of rigor is this:

    From the Rheformish Lexicon:

    rigor. n. Characteristic of having been made unnecessarily confusing and difficult

    So, if you ask a multiple choice question and make the distractors plausible enough that a significant number of students is likely to bubble one of the wrong bubbles, that shows that the question is rigorous.

    Many thanks to the field linguists who have braved harrowing “data chats,” “trainings,” and other Rheformish venues to gather source material for the Rheformish Lexicon. Mastery of the tongue will doubtless prove an essential tool of the Counter-rheformation.

    Reply
36. Cupcake says:

    February 15, 2014 at 8:45 am

    When I want to leave public school and teach at the Dallas versions of Cranbrook, it’s people like the people who post on this site who keep me from doing it.

    A line of corduroy evening wear? Why can’t they interpret hieroglyphics? A teacher who gave her babies the homework of counting their steps?

    You are my people.

    Reply
37. Joseph says:

    February 15, 2014 at 8:58 am

    In the tailor and the shoemaker, the tailor is told by the shoemaker that he must pluck out his eyes, if he wants to have the shoemaker’s bread to survive.
    This would be a great story to explain to children what Pearson is about.

    Reply
38. Bill says:

    February 15, 2014 at 7:24 pm

    Why don’t we take an eclectic approach and use the best of all methods to teach, keeping in mind the developmental levels of children. Use what works. There are methods to teach whole groups and methods to teach individuals and small groups. Teachers must be armed with the knowledge of how to teach something. How to apply the many different ways of reaching a group or individual. Keeping with one way, whether old school or new methods, only makes the teacher obsolete. How I taught one lesson one day didn’t always work another day. You must be ready to teach a different way. The subject matter never changes only the approach.

    Reply
39. kkdomangue says:

    February 15, 2014 at 9:06 pm

    Good kinder teaching incorporates standards into “play”… not an easy task for those not trained in early childhood development, even professional educators.

    Having substituted at differing grade levels prior to certification, I came to the conclusion that different personality types/temperaments work better with certain age-groups.

    Let’s not get reactionary. We can win our arguments using logic and evidence, minus emotional outbursts.

    We can fight without looking as though we are against everything that isn’t created in our own images. Truly we can. We are. We need to continue to do so.

    Reply
40. Joseph Herzog says:

    February 15, 2014 at 11:08 pm

    This is the type of insanity that destroys young children. For young children, play IS their rigor. Play is how and where children develop critical thinking skills, it’s where they learn to socialize, it’s where they develop curiosity and introspection. I feel for kids burdened by the weight of the “Reform” movement. After 36 years as a teacher and nearly 50 years in education, I doubt that I could teach under the onerous, disingenuous weight of NCLB/RTTT.

    Reply
41. Julie says:

    February 16, 2014 at 9:26 pm

    Reminds me of the bizarre movies we see where mothers are competing to get their kids into the best kindergarten or preschool or they won’t be a success. Mostly crazy people believe little kids need to work harder at testing and boring tasks like the common core. They need things presented in a fun and friendly way, with crafts and games and music and stories and recess and make believe and loving friendly teachers. God help us all if kindergarten becomes oliver twist grim.

    Reply
    • Joseph Mugivan says:

      February 17, 2014 at 5:50 pm

      How could we forget Oliver Twist?
      “May I have a another bowl of pudding Sir, if I do the Common Core Module? Another bowl of pudding?”

      Reply
      • Randal Hendee says:

        February 17, 2014 at 8:03 pm

        Joseph Mugivan:

        I don’t remember the workhouse children in Oliver Twist receiving any pudding. I think it was gruel at every meal. Kind of like test prep, followed by tests, followed by more test prep. Just as nourishing, too. The workhouse officials skimped on the gruel, but the “reformers” won’t be skimping on the test prep.

42. Marie Kielty, Early Childhood consultant, NAEYC Kindergarten Interest Forum facilitator says:

    February 16, 2014 at 9:40 pm

    Joseph, I am glad to see you consider PLAY as rigor.

    Dear Concerned Mom and Teacher, thank you for the link to the New York P-12 Common Core Standards. I looked at them two days ago and now I cannot find a certain section. Since I am not from New York, I do not recognize the names listed other than Dorothy Strickland. I am used to the person’s affiliation being given. There was none. I thought the first time I read them they included social and emotional development. I could not find those sections tonight.

    The PK ones parallel the subdivisiions of the K-12 standards. There are some valid points, but not all. “Emergent phonics”: I was glad to see the word emergent and pretend reading. The writing mentioned is undefined. Nothng is mentioned about the stages of writing , especially those that precede conventional writing. In the math ones the standard for addition and subtraction can be very misleading. The example clarifies it. It is in the context of a practical everyday problem. It does not and should not include the words “+”, “-“, and “=”.

    “High quality” means the definition as defined by the professionals, NAEYC, the National Association for the Education of Young Children. THe American Academy of Pediatricians defines pediatric practices. The American Medical Society defines medical Gractices. Early Childhood professionals define practices for children from birth to grade 3.

    Reply
43. gitapik says:

    February 17, 2014 at 1:57 am

    So obvious what’s going on here, once you get the lay of the land. Standardized/Common means one size fits all. They can write all the ‘differentiation’ modules that they want…it doesn’t mean a thing. The idea of taking the art of teaching out of the hands of the teachers is counterproductive. This is just one glaring example of that.

    Reply
44. Bill says:

    February 17, 2014 at 10:25 pm

    Why do we use differentiated instruction, and standardized tests

    Reply
45. Joseph Mugivan says:

    February 18, 2014 at 9:17 am

    Looking at the Common Core math lessons, they are tailored to meet the technology of the Smartboard, which reduces the ideas of math to number “lines”; unit displays of ones, tens, and hundreds; as well as the naming of geometric shapes. It is all direct instruction around singular problems.

    This reduces the ability of children to do multiple math problems at the same time in a collaborative way.

    With a blackboard teachers were able to place numerous problems on display and children could go to the board to resolve them in a social construct. Now the teacher uses only direct instruction and linear thinking to solve isolated problems, while children’s ability to perceive the math ideas in numerous ways is precluded. The imagination is no longer able to embrace the problem on its own terms.

    Such education molds the thinking patterns of children whose minds are malleable. This may be well and good for children who are being trained to be engineers, but parents should have the option of making that decision.

    There is a deadening of the brain formation with this kind of direct instruction and the brightest will have much trouble sitting through it. The opportunity of children to see the problem holistically is reduced.

    Children are being educated on Smartboards without having a relationship with the teacher, who is memorized in the technology, but a machine. The teacher must follow the script; his/her mind is unable to respond to the moment, in the classroom, where alternative ideas of learning may be possible.

    There is no space for student interaction with each other during such an event, when the lights are dimmed and all seating is focused on the lesson. Classroom seating is now being arranged to view the Smartboard and group seating with cooperative learning possibilities are eliminated. Shades are drawn in all of the classrooms and natural light is no longer available. Studies show that children respond best in natural light and are hyperactive in artificial light.

    Reply
46. Joseph Mugivan says:

    February 18, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    “Rigidity and hardness are companions of death.
    softness and tenderness are the companions of life.”

    Swami Prabhavananda

    Reply