Calling defenders of children and childhood!
Chalkbeat reports that a group of researchers conducted a huge study and concluded that academic rigor is good for little children.
https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/01/24/advanced-academic-content-kindergarten-study/
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I am very leary of those who use the word rigor. And who sponsored this research?
“Importantly, the study controls for outside factors like poverty, prior academic skills, and parental education that might affect students.” How does the study do this???? I’m just hoping these kids graduate from college at the end of 6th grade and get out there and start solving world problems as soon as possible.
Why no rigor in the womb? Wimps!
That quip made my day.
That’s a good one, Diane!
I recall some years ago when mothers were playing Mozart while pregnant.
Roy, I played Chopin all thro my first pregnancy, trying to learn a new piece 20 yrs after piano lessons. The info on in utero hearing/ listening hadn’t reached me yet; I was late-child-bearing, on leave from biz career. My only concern was to prove to myself that I could still ‘do things I wanted to do’ despite being isolated into a tradl role. In infancy, he surprised us by spurning all lullaby kiddie cassettes in favor of a Horowitz Chopin collection; at 4, he was picking out the Mario theme, demanding lessons so he could “use all my fingers.”
The libertarians deprive the womb of what makes it a place where a baby flourishes, affordable vitamins, medical care, nutrition, fewer stresses. Then, the toddler is expected to endure rigor. And, if the outcome is failure, it’s because the child has been “too sheltered” (Betsy DeVos’ description) and lacks “grit” (MacArthur Foundation’s answer).
Rigor in the Womb
Rigor in the womb
Without a lot of room
Breeds character, I’m told
And I, for one, am sold
Mamie,
It is likely that they did using information about household income and parental education. In essence they only compared students from households with similar income levels to come to this conclusion.
Some economist somewhere would undoubtedly feret out the impact on a speeding locomotive of an ant on the tracks — you know, by controlling for all the other factors involved.
“We are cautiously optimistic that advanced academic content can be taught without compromising students’ social-emotional skills.” Why is this the first thing that came to my mind after reading this?
lol! I want to bookmark this video it and play it any time we talk about testing, data and early intervention in our K-1 school.
OMG 😀 snort! Thanks for starting my day w/hilarity.
Let’s force little children to walk at 6 months as well…..
Once again there are so many variables in the so-called research that we have no way the guage the credibility of the findings. That won’t stop the “reform” crowd from accepting the legitimacy of the report and spewing it all over their media outlets. Real researchers have a control group, one variable is studied at a time, over time and with a large enough sample to be meaningful.
Lots of children survived the Holocaust, but it doesn’t mean it was good for them.
That’s a good one also!
I teach middle school, and with all of this stupid “rigor,” by middle school, kids HATE school. The love of learning and natural curiousity I used to see in middle school is gone. I’m sure it’s just as bad in elementary school, too. Kids are pushed SO hard now a days that they hate learning. It’s frustrating and exasperating and tragic all at the same time.
Well said. All of the attempts to push down the curricula is turning young people off to learning. Deadly data collection becomes the main objective, not what is best for young people. Students should be intrigued and excited by learning.
So true! Every time I read about rigor and the push down of academics into early childhood I want to scream…NO! When is this going to stop? This miseducation is hurting our young ones.
Why is that curiosity gone?
Because GAGA* Good German teachers implement all the the malpractices that those who don’t know anything about the teaching and learning process foist on them. Those GAGAGG teachers, which includes probably 99% of all teachers are to blame for that lack of love of learning and natural curiosity. They have killed it.
And no, I don’t care about the excuses that teachers give for supposedly having to implement those malpractices. They have implemented unjust, invalid, unethical malpractices that harm all students. And that’s all wrong!
“Should we therefore forgo our self-interest? Of course not. But it [self-interest] must be subordinate to justice, not the other way around. . . . To take advantage of a child’s naivete. . . in order to extract from them something [test scores, personal information] that is contrary to their interests, or intentions, without their knowledge [or consent of parents] or through coercion [state mandated testing], is always and everywhere unjust even if in some places and under certain circumstances it is not illegal. . . . Justice is superior to and more valuable than well-being or efficiency; it cannot be sacrificed to them, not even for the happiness of the greatest number [quoting Rawls]. To what could justice legitimately be sacrificed, since without justice there would be no legitimacy or illegitimacy? And in the name of what, since without justice even humanity, happiness and love could have no absolute value?. . . Without justice, values would be nothing more than (self) interests or motives; they would cease to be values or would become values without worth.”—Comte-Sponville [my additions]
*GAGA = Go Along to Get Along
Why the “Good German,” Duane? What does it add? What are you trying to say?
Why? Because it is appropriate. Hannah Arendt in analyzing what happened in Nazi Germany pointed out that without the average “Good German” doing his/her job to keep the Nazi death machine running smoothly and efficiently, without the “Good German” turning a blind eye to what was happening to their fellow citizens.
What it adds is to highlight that for massive evil to occur, and massive evil is occurring to the students with all of these invalid, unjust and unethical malpractices, it takes many ordinary people, in this case the teachers and adminimals, to turn a blind eye, to implement malpractices that they know harm students and to Go Along to Get Along.
What I am trying to say is “When will it stop? When will teachers stand up and say ‘NO, I’m not implementing these malpractices?’, When will the harms to the students’ being be put to an end?”
You do realize that Kindergarten is both a German word and concept? Or hasn’t that knowledge filtered down to those Good Missourians?
WTF, where do you get off on condescending to us Show Me Staters. But then I wouldn’t expect you to know this bit of education history: “St. Louis Public Schools opened the first public kindergarten in North America in 1873 under the direction of William Torrey Harris, then Superintendent of Schools, and Susan Blow, who had studied the methods of Friedrich Fröbel, the founder of the kindergarten system.” (from Wiki)
You see there is a large historical German immigrant population in Missouri-of which I am one. And those German-Missouri grape vines helped save the French wine industry in the late 1800s due to being resistant to the virus that was devastating French vineyards.
Gee whiz Wally, those Missouri hillbillies have a little history and knowledge behind them.
Come visit and I’ll gladly show you around the Show Me State.
I agree with GAGA, but it didn’t happen overnight. Over a period of decades, the destructive elements that are systematically destroying public education by stripping away all of the best practices arrived slowly a drop at a time while teacher training was changed to match so many of the newer teachers probably have a feeling something’s wrong but are not sure what it is. The result is the higher ratio of teachers leaving the profession and the fact that many never even consider entering teaching.
I blame Bill Gates. He is the one that said he’d spend billions to change public education into what he thinks it should be: rank and punish high stakes tests and getting rid of teachers and replacing them with screens and computer programs with a class of 50 – 100 in each room.
“so many of the newer teachers probably have a feeling something’s wrong but are not sure what it is.”
Quite true Lloyd, quite true!
Well, Duane, if you want to play that game, I guess I can go back to the Civil War and characterize you as a Missouri bushwacker (could that the source of the name Swacker?). The example you cite references a specific historical time and place and its use does not fit the context for which you use it. Do the tens or hundreds of thousands of Germans who resisted Naziism belong to your characterization of being Good Germans? Is the history since 1945 just an inconvenience that can be ignored? Try reading a little history and quit basing your views on outdated stereotypes. https://www.gdw-berlin.de/en/home/
The concept of the a unified Europe began with the German leaders of resistance to Naziism. Are those the Good Germans you have in mind when you us it as a pejorative? I have read many of Hannah Arendt’s writings and listened to many of her lectures. I am confident she would have bristled at your perverted use of the term. But when you take one fact or trait and apply it in a generalization about a group of people, that is called bigotry. You must love the way Individual-1 uses his bigotry to justify his domestic and foreign policies and stab our allies in their collective backs.
Good Germans today have medical and dental care available to all. They take in more refugees from around the world than any nation. The have best public transportation in the world. Not one has debt incurred by education or medical care. They travel around the world more than any culture. They have the second oldest federal republic in the world. They were on the front lines of the Cold War, not isolated in the middle of some distant continent. They have many problems, as does any society. But the historical stereotype you choose to perpetuate ain’t one of them.
Maybe he was referring to Germans that are standing up to “Germany’s new breed of neo-Nazis.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-17556575/germany-s-new-breed-of-neo-nazis
Well, as far as I know, my German ancestors were still in Europe at the time of the Civil War so no you shouldn’t assume that Swacker has anything to do with Bushwackers-ha ha!
You don’t like my usage of Good German, so be it. I find it sad that you don’t understand the underlying concept of good folks allowing bad things to happen-as long as those bad things don’t happen to those good folks.
Am I getting to close to your own world of implementing malpractices and make you feel a bit guilty for said implementations??
If so, GOOD. You and many others need to rethink your GAGA Good German attitudes.
So sorry to see you fall into that trap, Lloyd. I thought you were more discerning, realistic, and educated. I’ve been fighting Naziism in this country since the mid-80s. I left the teaching profession because I thought the fight against the rise of the extremism of David Duke was existential. I have taught about German fascism and continue to do so. If you’ve been paying attention, you should know that the rise of fascism is a global phenomena. See Brexit, see rise of Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish extremism. See the rehabilitation of Peronism. See the recent election in Brazil. See Saudi Arabia. See Ukrainian and Russian extremism. See the rise of popularity of Austrian fascism. And see the rise of the AfD party in Germany. But most importantly, see Washington, DC and rise of rightist extremism in THIS nation. But go ahead, cherry pick and whine from the bleachers like some of the commentators on this blog. You can pat yourself on the back while the rise of global fascism lives its new Renaissance.
I’m aware that the rise of a Nazi like power movement is on the rise throughout most of white civilization. Trump and his deplorable followers represent the US branch.
Does “circular firing squad” mean anything thing to ya, Greg?
“Circular Firing Squad”
Since this was the first time I’d heard of this phrase, my first impression was of a firing squad in a circle with the target-victim in the middle and shooting the target/victim also meant shooting at the firing squad on the other side of the circle meaning you would get shot too.
Then I looked the phrase up to see what the dictionary had to say.
“used in reference to a situation in which a group of people are engaged in self-destructive internal conflicts and mutual recriminations”
My conclusion: the libertarian-alt right billionaire oligarch/autocrats are paying their troops to divide and conquer. That doesn’t mean everyone involved in perpetuating a “circular firing squad” is in the pay of the oligarchs. But it does mean if you are an individual who is NOT being paid by the oligarchs and you do not agree with what they are doing, and you are involved in tactics that will divide and conquer your own side, you are a sucker who allows emotions to make your decisions for you and you have been played and/or a virus or Trojan Horse has been planted in your brain because of exposure to repeated lies through social media and the traditional media.
That means it is time to scan for those programmed viruses planted in your brain and delete them. Then update your bias detector and your lie detector. You might also want to run a scan and delete all the cooperate cookies that have been planted in your brain along with ransomware and Trojan Horses.
Our human brains are biologically intelligent computers that are designed to learn on their own just like artificial intelligence.
But did you know that research is proving that artificial intelligence can be biased and prejudiced.
“While machines are theoretically neutral and without prejudice, there have been cases in recent years that show even algorithms can be biased. Some prejudices held in the real world can filter into AI systems”
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/14/ai-bias-how-to-fight-prejudice-in-artificial-intelligence.html
This might help explain why Trump has millions of loyal followers. They all grew up and learned how to be biased and prejudiced just like the Orange Idiot.
Sorry to be so angry, but I really have no f*cks to give anymore for comments like this from people who purport to be educated and objective.
Well since you “have no f*cks to give” quit responding.
Not condescending to the Missourians I have grown to love and respect, just you for your idiotic simplifications.
Be careful when that high horse bucks, eh!
It is delicious that you get so worked up when I make comments in jest about Good Missourians and then you dismiss my objections. People on high horses should accuse others of the same thing.
I went through my notes on The Origins of Totalitarianism and scanned the marks in my text. Nowhere did I find the term “Good Germans.” The phrase she used was “fellow travelers.” So Duane’s perversion of the phrase has as much legitimacy as Individual-1’s claim about Muslims in New Jersey dancing on September 11th.
Perhaps you are correct in stating that she didn’t use that particular term. It is my term which I’m sure gleaned from somewhere else. I did not mean to imply it was her term, just my take on her concept of the fact it was the everyday actions/non-actions by the everyday German that allowed the atrocities to happen.
Oh, and those Muslims were actually Mossad agents dancing in celebration (or at least it appears in celebration).
At least I use my real name and not hide behind a moniker.
Love all of Mate’s comments…… and Duane usually has a lot to add your blog.
I think there needs to be a little intervention around their debate about GAGA and the “Good Germans.”
Geez! Enough already
>
Can’t believe I actually made the effort to find you at the NPE meeting. Won’t make that mistake ever again. And it’s not hard to find out who I am. If that kind of bovine excrement, from which it seems you’ve gleaned a lot, motivates you, that is.
Greg,
Duane has loose lips. Don’t let him bother you.
J Twomey: would you say the same if Duane or someone else had written Jps, kkes, wps, dgos, nggrs, jggrb**s, spcs, hbs, f*gs, or anything else along those lines? If not, then you might understand how I feel about “Good Germans” in the way Duane used it. Do you accept the discredited thesis of Daniel James Goldhagen that anti-Semitism in Germans is a genetic trait? If yes, then why are you here? I’ve read how people on this blog denigrate Mormons and I call them out. As an atheist, I would do the same if anyone made derogatory remarks about any religion. But, as I always write, I admit to being a hypocrite when it comes to scientology.
I am Jewish. My partner is a Roman Catholic and German. She is obsessed with the constant attacks on her German heritage. Her parents came to the US in the 1920s. Why stereotype and demean all Germans? No decent person would do that to any other group.
More contemporaneously, how would all of you, Steve included, react to someone who claimed, “All Americans are guilty of supporting Individual-1, his ideas, and his policies because he’s the president of the US”? Do you believe in collective guilt? Is life and are opinions and convictions explained that simply? This is important to me. This was a central tenet of my philosophy when I was a teacher and continues to be so in my life. If that bothers any of you, I’m not sorry in any way. It’s your problem, not mine.
Me Steve? Jeez, how did I get into this acrimonious exchange?
If I may quote, “Wow, this is a lively chat! With the exception of the German fracas, it’s good to be among such thoughtful folks.”
So yes, you did “get into this acrimonious exchange”. Sorry 😎😉🧐💩😇🙃👹🙄
Er, I believe that rather clearly indicates my wish to be apart from that particular dimension, not implicated therein. But whatever.
And NOW those yahoos think kids should be “GRITTY.” HUH? Gritty? Sounds like DIRT to me.
Nothing wrong with kids getting good and dirty while playing outside!
I am ever so thankful that I managed to ‘escape’ the kindergarten experience. Instead, I ran around in the woods with my buddy from across the street (a far more educational activity).
I enjoyed my kindergarten experience in. . . 1960! And we still ran around the woods and creek and fields. And played on sports teams.
All were good childhood learning environments.
Responding to the “call!”
First of all I must state my bias. I hate research like this on general principle.
Second, as stated in the article, the “results” are a self-fulfilling prophecy. The research asks that we stipulate to the idea that doing better on kiddie tests is proof of important advances. I do not stipulate to that. Anyone can define an outcome, design methods to meet the outcome goal, and then declare victory. It is a self-limited exercise in researchers’ self-gratification.
Third: Many other studies have shown that “direct instruction” for young children creates misleading results. The outcomes, short term, are like the study referenced here. Kids do better on certain assessments when they have been drilled in the things being assessed. Then, counterintuitively, the gains disappear and by third grade these students were “behind” their peers who just played in a developmentally appropriate way. I could make a case that the very practices that produce better scores among the young children are the same practices that stunt more important cognitive development.
Fourth: Several centuries of observation and empirical evidence show that schools delaying “instruction” until age 7 or later “perform” as well as or better than schools with early academic curricula. There is abundant evidence that the early achievement, if you call it that, is unimportant.
Fifth: Kids should play and have fun. The use of their bodies, the perception and creativity involved in finger painting, the indulgence of imagination, singing, the magic of fantasy, the utter joy of aimless daydreaming, the adventures with friends, the trying on of different ways of being in the world. . .. . All of this is infinitely more important than this “research.”
Fifth: Studies show that kids learn to dislike school and that curiosity and other intrinsic motivators are sucked out of them by 8th grade. This crap is why that happens.
Sixth: Did I mention that I hate research like this?
Standing ovation!
Hear! Hear! Kids really do hate being treated like Pavlov’s dog just as I do. Good grief.
Your point four needs to be in all caps…we have pushed too much down into the lower grades and it is not working !
Is it as simple as who pays for the research? Many universities are now think tanks with students. Gates gave Fryer $1 mil. John Arnold funds Tulane’s ERA Center. The Koch’s fund campus centers with strings attached. Frederick Hess prescribed the practice in, “Don’t Surrender the Academy”, at Philanthropy Roundtable.
What grants and associations do the research authors have?
If these researchers want to see “rigor”, they should watch kids play. Just watch, not experiment. Children playing will repeat the same thing over and over and over and over until they get it right (by their own definition of “right”). They will come back in the face of “failure” and frustration again and again. Working with each other, they will plow through conflict (with tears if necessary). They will learn and apply advanced concepts (albeit not necessarily consciously). They will have monumental negotiations amongst themselves. They will plan, prepare and create. They will continue in the face of pretty much any obstacle until they get their questions answered, because that’s what play is – asking and answering their own questions. And when it’s a question that one is intrinsically motivated to answer, one will continue to go at it until one’s own curiosity is satisfied.
It’s like the difference between the kid who runs because running is fun or because they have their own goals they want to meet vs. the kid who runs only in PE class only because they have to and only as fast and as far as they absolutely have to and will never, ever run in any other context that isn’t absolutely mandatory because they only thing they’ve learned about running is that they hate it.
Teacher Tom’s blog should be required reading for anyone involved in education at any level.
Well stated, Dienne!
That PE class analogy about running is an excellent way of thinking about this. Thank you.
Funny, I read that example as the opposite of excellent. If you accept that logic, they you must believe: 1) physical education is not important; in reality it is more important for students who don’t engage in any kind of exercise. Remind me again, are we for or against making physical education an important part of a well-round curriculum? I know where I stand. 2) the example of a child who is forced to run is more of an example of bad teaching; a good teacher finds different ways to engage their students in the subject 3) just because a student may resist means we should give up and let them determine the curriculum; education is never easy. I could take Spanish, to choose one example, and hate it if I had a poor instructor and was never taught why learning a foreign language might be important and relevant.
GregB,
I’m not sure if we disagree or not. For the record:
1) I believe physical education is very important
2) I agree with this, except I would add that if the school says that physical education will only be kids being forced to run, then I would not entirely blame the teacher
3) I agree that just because a student may resist learning something does not mean that they should determine the curriculum.
However, when I expressed approval of the comment about physical education, I did not see it as contradicting any of my agreement with your points.
I perceived the point about physical education being more about making physical education entirely about making kids into the fastest runners possible beginning in Kindergarten which might lead to the students who were in a physical education class like that having better “average” mile times when tested in 3rd grade but could also lead to many students turned off and missing the joy of physical education because from day 1 in Kindergarten it was about making sure the kid would run a mile fast enough to meet some “standard” that all 8 year olds needed to meet to prove their PE education was superior or not.
Who did the research? Who funded the research? This is 99% wrong for more reasons than there is time to explain. The rest of the world figured this out long ago. Talk to Dr. John Medina, Dr. John Ratey, Jean Blades Moize or Rae Pica and find out what is necessary for kids to be become enthusiastic, creative, self directed, life long learners. Joe Herzog, Neuro Kinesiologist bigfish344@hotmail.com Fresno, CA
The ful article is behind a paywall. I will look for a copy, but in the meantime note this.
“They devoted more time to advanced literacy and math content, teacher-directed instruction, and assessment and substantially less time to art, music, science, and child-selected activities.”
Just what the shove IT down to kindergarten folks want as long as it is teacher in full control and the curriculum gives only token attenion to “art, music, science, and child-selected activities.” UGH.
It appears that one of the authors was a “research scientist” for a Horatio Alger Association paper. And another, I am unable to find in faculty directories for the university listed. The paper’s scholars could provide info. from their c.v.’s via comment at the Ravitch blog. It would correct any misunderstandings readers may have.
Then why isn’t Finland doing this? In Finland, children don’t start school until they are seven and a lot of time is scheduled for play between academic classes.
In fact, I’ve read that most parents in Finland support education so much, they start teaching their own children to read at home as early as age two and by the time those children are seven, they are already reading above grade level and do NOT need phonics. In Finland, phonics is reserved for the few children who did not learn to read before they started school at seven and that is a very small ratio of the total.
“Finland has the second lowest relative poverty rate for children in the world at 5.3 percent, according to UNICEF. In 2012, Finland also had one of Europe’s lowest rates—5.5 percent—of people living below the poverty threshold (with a threshold at 50 percent of the national median income).”
https://www.borgenmagazine.com/lack-of-poverty-in-finland/
“Highly trained, respected and free: why Finland’s teachers are different”
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/17/highly-trained-respected-and-free-why-finlands-teachers-are-different
No RIGOR in Finland unless the RIGOR is implemented by the parents at home.
Finland is Finished
Finland is finished
Lets children play
Future’s diminished
On PISA they’ll pay
Yup, all Finns are left with is their vodka.
When I read the Chalkbeat article linked to above, I see this:
“The researchers looked at kindergarten classrooms where teachers reported spending more time on certain advanced topics like alphabetizing words or recognizing fractions…”
What? Wait a second! By definition, a teacher cannot spend time on “certain advanced topics like alphabetizing words or recognizing fractions” UNLESS the majority of students already know how to read and have an understanding of numbers and counting!!
If the majority of children in your Kindergarten class do not already read and spell or even the alphabet, how are you teaching them to “alphabetize words?”
I thought it was revealing that the photo that went with the article was of a school — Brooklyn School of Inquiry — that admits only Kindergarten students who have proved their “giftedness” by a test. A test, by the way, that their highly striving parents often spend much time prepping them for so they can score high enough to get admitted to BSI.
What this study really showed is that if a student is already academically advanced and can read and write at far above grade level, and his teacher has no obligation to teach any student who is struggling to learn, that teacher can offer up some more so-called “academic” instruction that might interest a group of kids who are already reading and adding and subtracting numbers instead of having them spend whatever “teaching time” is spent in kindergarten listening to the alphabet being recited and sounding out the sounds that each letter makes. And instead of spending their time learning how to count from 1 – 20, which these students already know how to do, they do more interesting work with numbers.
But it is just as likely that these students spend as much time playing and having fun, and the only difference is because they can already read and do simple math, the time that might be spent in a more “play-based Kindergarten” doing basic counting is slightly more “academic”.
And because the only children who would be able to remain in a Kindergarten class where the teachers can teach so-called “academic content” because all the students already know the basics would also be the students more likely to do well on the kinds of tests given to students who already have the basics mastered before getting to school. Especially because they are also more likely to have parents who would be doing the extra things to do well on those tests, like prepping.
I don’t think there’s any long term evaluation of outcomes going on here. What happens in high school and beyond?
wdf1,
The students in this study were in kindergarten in 2010-11. They are not in high school yet.
The problem with long term evaluations is that it takes a long time before the evaluation can even begin.
I would guess that the girls who attended Rigorgarten (Kindergarten with rigor) will undoubtedly have lower rates of teen pregnancy.
There is also undoubtedly a (fake) Nobel awaiting the economist who ferets out the effect.
Calling Raj Chetty…
Whenever I hear Chetty, I thank my Third grade teacher for preventing me from getting pregnant before marriage
Machiavelli was wrong. The ends do not always justify the means.
Long term effects of rigor are not known. For example, in many ways and cases, state test scores and college entrance do not predict college graduation. No excuses charters show short term gains over long term losses, also for example.
Common sense.
I am not sure what rigor is. I thought it was pretty rigorous to cut a hickory tree Saturday, to split it and haul it up my hill and stack it. It felt really good, the first work I have done since I broke some ribs in early December.
Where did I learn to enjoy hard work? Is it even good that I enjoy hard work? Should I be doing something else like grading student essays? Am I really lazy but self-congratulatory?
I used to sit in the college library for hours, reading and noting ideas to go into papers. Was that rigorous? I certainly did not breathe as hard as I did yesterday.
If rigor means teaching children to apply themselves to tasks that require patience and dedication, I am all for it. Whether getting them to do this by any particular method in kindergarten is efficacious is quite another matter. One kid responds to one thing, another to something completely different. Teachers will know if the various layers of people directing them will just let them respond to the children.
If rigor means putting a feather in your cap because your child is above grade level, then you are being silly.
Glad to hear that you are healing, getting out and doing those sorts of things, Roy!
“If rigor means putting a feather in your cap because your child is above grade level, then you are being silly.”
I’d certainly use a lot harsher descriptor than “silly”!
A friend of my sister’s told her that she’s very concerned about her five-year-old because he’s not reading yet and the teacher is pushing her to intervene and give him extra support at home so he can make the progress he needs to make. I find this sickening. At five years old the race begins. At five years old both mother and child are being made to feel that they do not measure up. What is happening in this country is completely insane! So I asked my sister why wouldn’t her friend speak up and question the teacher/system when everyone knows that many kids do not read until first grade and that is perfectly normal. The response was that when a teacher tells you that your child is falling behind all you want to do is help them to get to where they are “supposed” to be. Parents are very hesitant to question the teacher because they are afraid a teacher who is challenged by a parent may just end up treating the child differently as a result -It is very intimidating to confront a teacher.
What a mess!
It breaks my heart how we are robbing our kindergartners of the magical experience kindergarten should be. When will this insanity stop???
When my 1st entered K, I was told that she needed to know 50 sight words at the beginning of the school year (this was 2007). I am an older parent. This did not sit well with me and always made me feel uneasy but I spent that whole summer with flash cards and an unhappy child. Sure, she could read words in K, but she couldn’t understand what she was reading or explain it. It wasn’t until the end of 1st grade that she was able to read and comprehend. 2 yrs later I did this same abuse to child #2 with the same results. I believed the teacher and I committed emotional abuse on my children, which to this day, I regret. If I could do it all over again, I would tell the teacher that she could take those site words and stuff them where the sun doesn’t shine. Yes, both my children could read words in K, but now that they are older (in HS), they absolutely hate reading. What good did this to for my children?
Lets hear it for us older parents! My 12 year old refuses to believe that her 63 year old father is old.
Lisa, that makes my blood boil!! Where does a public district’s elemsch get off establishing “prerequisites” for entering kindergartners? And, not for nothing, but memorizing “sight words” is controversial among reading experts as an intro to reading anyway. Whatever happened to welcoming incoming kids w/a personalized apple woodcut-on-a-string to wear on opening day?!
Don’t beat yourself up. You can only do what seems to best at that moment. I have many regrets about my GAGA approach w/#1 re: SpEd. Luckily I had a 3rd who also went down that path– my way — plus an earful for Child Study Team at Phase 2 [middle school]. But I wouldn’t have had the foresight (& maybe not courage) for that, had not my eldest been suffering right than some serious problems in hisch due to my GAGA’ing CST since 3rd gr w/him.
I remember several parent friends who worried excessively about this– even w/teachers telling them that 5-7 is the normal span for learning to read– & even w/other parents saying ‘wait for their front teeth to grow in,’ or ‘mine didn’t read until end-1st & is now a bookworm.’ So many anxious, competitive parents do their kids a disservice this way. That this child’s teacher is supplying this ludicrous, age-inappropriate pressure is, well… outrageous !
Here is what I can tell parents who worry about whether their kids start learning math early enough: no, the amount of math needed for the vast majority of people has not increased in recent years or decades. Also, most of the math (calculus) I teach to engineers at the university was invented in the sixteen hundreds, so the modern advances of mathematics do not even make it to the general engineering curriculum, let alone trickling somehow down to kindergarten.
What I can say, though, is, that I see more and more burnt out freshmen. Wonder why.
Who is conducting these tests? Let children be children! Rigor is meant for the dead, not our kids. There is a difference between “rigor” and “challenging” a child. These new “recommendations” disregard former research including the study of various individual learning styles, let alone the work of Piaget and Maslow.
I want to know whether these researchers insist on rigor for their own children. I wouldn’t care since my children are grown, but I have to consider my precious grandkids. I want them treated as individuals with differing needs, not forced into an artificial environment which disregards the teacher’s inclination on what is best for them. So far, the schools they attend have met the challenge. I hope these attempted intrusions stop and the educators are left alone so they can do their jobs and educate.
No Child Race to the Top
by Jack Burgess
Hold fast to dreams, for when dreams die,
life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly.
Langston Hughes
If up were down, and black were white,
if Jesus were Satan, and you made a sect
of that, if yin were yang,
blood came from turnips,
and penciling bubbles was as
beautiful as painting
or singing, or god forbid,
daydreaming–or writing poetry–
it would be possible to combine “No Child
Left Behind” with “Race to the Top.”
If John Dewey were alive today
he’d be turning over in his grave.
Learn by doing, his legacy,
so kids today learn to take tests,
learn to get grades,
learn how little
we value them,
how bright we are.
We who sang songs,
read poems, wrote essays,
leave them the brain bending,
standardized,
multiple guess.
No wonder they turn away
to the electronic matrix,
taught that Reagan the Great
was the beginning of history.
Schools will be fracked,
will be squeezed until
profits ooze out,
but can the imaginations
of childhood be wrung dry
for corporate greed?
Will children really stop
gazing at the moon
and loving one another
for either political party?
Or just burrow more deeply
into the sweetness of cyber space?
Orwellian logic would have
it that love finds a way
when Big Brother is not looking.
So, is school a preparation for life…or a part of life?
Kindergarten= children’s garden. Sounds like it should be FUN! It’s not called KinderGRITen. (Do these researchers know how to spell?! Maybe they need to go back to school!)
Seriously (but not), I was in kindergarten (1/2 day then, mostly AM, then went home to eat lunch…& stayed there) in 1957, where we had socialization activities (i.e., PLAYTIME), & some ABCs & 123s, coloring, art &…a GIANT slide IN the classroom!!
I enjoyed kindergarten so much, I even remember my loving, nurturing teacher’s name–Mrs. Anderson.
Despite having a rather UNrigorous (& the only grit was from outside, on the playground),
I still could read (above grade level!), solve math problems (w/o a calculator), graduate high school, go to college, have a wonderful teaching career, get married, raise a child, etc.
I LOVED learning &, aside from the Iowa Basic Skills Tests (I can’t remember in what grade we started having them) & the ACT & GRE, we took only teacher-made tests.
Wow–I think most every reader, here, survived a school career sans the words GRIT, RIGOR & “standardized” testing. & not just survived, but thrived.
So–take your “research” & run it though the shredder.
I had Mrs. France for K and she let us finger paint with our bare feet when the weather got warmer so we could do it outside. I had a picture of a red balloon on my locker because kids were not expected to be reading at that age (I could). We learned how to take turns, get along with one another and become better human beings through play. We pulled the little red wagon down to the cafeteria and got our graham crackers and milk for snack time and then had a rest on our little carpets and then went home. All in 1/2 day. I believe there were only a few desks that were shoved together to make a bigger space for doing activities. No academic rigor and I turned out just fine. 1st grade was also 1/2 day until after the Thanksgiving break and once we went full day, we came back from lunch and had 1/2 hr of nap time. School was a happy and healthy place to be.
“I believe there were only a few desks that were shoved together to make a bigger space for doing activities”– that was my [’55, 1/2-day] kindergarten, too! As I recall, publicsch K was a fairly new thing then, & was just being added in rural township areas.
There were no PreK’s at all then “downtown” where kids lived close enough to play together. Our rural nbhd organized one in the early ’60’s, hired our own teacher, fund-raised & did chores co-op. That was possible because the large majority of moms worked at home raising kids.
Oh, & kudos, love & thanks to you, Mrs. Anderson, wherever you are!
Stupid research. If you force people into more academic situations, they will behave and achieve more academically, even little kids. A social-emotional metric does not cover the downsides, at all. Tamping down on joy, creativity, healthy senses of self and the ability to truly think differently; cranking up the beginnings of stress, anxiety and unhealthy competition.
“But a new study suggests the concerns about academic rigor in early grades may be overblown. It finds that students in kindergarten classes with more academic content not only show higher math and reading ability, they don’t do any worse — and in some cases do better — on social-emotional metrics like self-control, focus, and behavior.”
Sheesh, I missed that: “social-emotional metrics like self-control, focus, and behavior .” Yes, indeed, it is entirely possible to train kids to “hold a bubble!” “sit still!” “hands on your own body!” Done daily via yelling/ intimidation in mediocre PreK’s. Who on earth considers those metrics of social and emotional well-being?!
I do not agree with your “If you force people into more academic situations, they will behave and achieve more academically, even little kids.” What is “behaving academically”? It will take much more time, & stress all around, to obtain desired academic results [e.g. reading, performing sums] before kids are developmentally ready.
Sure it can be done in some fashion, w/blood sweat & tears, at age 5: you’ll have a group where 1/3 are fine, 1/3 are barely hanging in, & 1/3 are mostly failing & feeling stupid. Producing “higher” test scores [higher than what? Such tests didn’t exist before ed-deform]… Is that “behaving academically”? Or, K-2 can return to its once-fluid existence, where academic skills were acquired across a span of yrs as appropriate to each kid, w/some learning early, & some catching up all at once later on– most everybody behaving at a similar academic level by age 8 [& extra help for those who aren’t].
I don’t know if you work with little kids. As parents, we all notice the huge differences in size/ devpt/ maturity of our entering kindergartners. I work w/2.5-6 y.o.’s: the younger they are, the more pronounced these differences. At age 3 even a small group will span the spectrum from the diaper-wearing & barely-talking to the articulate & favoring unique clothing. At age 4, stark differences in emotional devpt become evident, w/last yr’s precocious child regressing into separation anxiety, shy kids suddenly loquacious & social, quietly-moody kids emerging as aggressive clique-formers. At age 5 many experience a huge growth spurt: these kids are a spectrum spanning the pre-pubescent to the still-tiny/ emotionally immature.
Cognitive and social/ emotional devpt in most cases go lockstep w/the physical changes. Trying to impose annual stdzd achievement levels on the age 2.5-6 or 7 y.o. contingent is a fool’s errand.
I agree bethree. Just trying to make some semblance of sense of this nonsensical research.
“What is “behaving academically?” ”
Well, in my case, as a mathematician, I do thinking for a living (and for immense pleasure). The more involved I am in my thinking, the more and faster I move: up and down my department’s corridor, up and down the stairs, in and out of the building, and walk around campus. I often find myself looking up, and ask “How the heck have I got here?” When I believe I have a great idea and I need to think it over, I go and do intense swimming because I don’t want people to see a 60-year-old running around campus like crazy.
During class (even during lecture), I walk up and down in front of the board, approach students, sit down among them when a student goes to the board, and fidget if the student says something interesting, jump up and run back to the board if the student says something exciting, unexpected that needs to be analyzed.
So as far as I am concerned, the story about Archimedes, how he jumped out of his bathtub and ran around naked, screaming “Heureka” is completely credible. Just another day in a scientist’s office, behaving academically.
Now tell me, how making kids sitting still and in quiet enhances their learning experience. A quiet class makes me sweat “Am I boring the students?”
Rigor? When you read the above, do you get the impression, rigor is the most important thing in scientific discovery or in the teaching-learning process? Yeah, we do need to be rigorous when we put on paper our findings. But does rigor guide us, inspire us? If a mathematician spends less than 10% of his time being rigorous, should achieving rigor be a milepost to reach as early as possible in a kid’s life?
What a waste of time and probably grant money this paper is. If you ask a wrong question for your research to begin with, how can you expect a reasonable answer? As Voltaire said “Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.”
Mate,
I love your story about “thinking for a living!”
I get you, Akademos– me, too.
Mâté, love this word-picture of “behaving academically!” 😀
Rigor Mathis
Rigor math is
Cut and dry
All you have is
Slicing Pi
“Now tell me, how making kids sitting still and in quiet enhances their learning experience. A quiet class makes me sweat ‘Am I boring the students?'”
True dat– but only for those who have learned to take turns talking, “use their ‘inside’ voices,” etc. Watching PreK teachers impart this can be an eye-opener. Too many little ones endure 10-hr days punctuated regularly with the ear-splitting roar “CATCH– A– BUBBLE!” By comparison, a K teacher I know whose charges can be seen filing off to the playground while quietly chanting Mother Goose rhymes.
I think this is much bigger than teachers
refusing to test, or not.
Our nation and larger society must mature, must get beyond this difficult period.
Rigor=rigormortis
(not on topic) Virginia teachers, from all over the state, are marching in Richmond today. see
https://www.roanoke.com/news/virginia/virginia-teachers-are-marching-on-the-capitol-on-monday-here/article_4b5eee54-debc-574a-bcb0-1305c924e46d.html
Virginia is in the bottom half of the nation in teacher pay, teachers want smaller class sizes, etc.
There are rumors of a possible strike.
I don’t have time to scream as I am off the Va. Teachers march in Richmond. But this kind of talk makes me boil! They are children. And I am talking pre- 3rd who used to be considered Early childhood!
Wow, this is a lively chat! With the exception of the German fracas, it’s good to be among such thoughtful folks. One thing I feel compelled to add . . .
The original piece seems to cheer the fact that early academic rigor didn’t inhibit social emotional learning (SEL). The researchers are nearly giddy at that supposed finding.
SEL is touted as a brilliant new component to learning and schools, as though discovered through profound insight in the last few decades. “We have found a new dimension to human existence and now we can teach it in schools!!!”
I think this codification of the obvious, regimentation of the fluid, formalization of the wondrous nature of kids is arguably MORE (I HATE PEOPLE WHO USE ALL CAPS) damaging than early academic rigor.
SEL suggests that there is a temperament that all children should have and we should construct practices to mold them to it. It suggests that impulsivity is bad (it is my main joy in retirement), that “controlling yourself” is more important than raw, outrageous fun, and that there is enormous value to being grown-up in a way defined by a group of older people who probably have too little fun themselves.
It is the dance partner of grit, which I also despise. Educators and researchers like the pop phenomenon Paul Tough have made schools into places where children who were once demeaned for not being smart enough are now demeaned for not being “gritty” enough. SEL demeans children for being children.
Academic “rigor” in this context seeks cognitive conformity.
SEL seeks conformity of the spirit.
Leave the damn kids alone!
It certainly requires a great deal of rigor on everyone’s part when force-feeding academics prematurely is on the menu. And– at least, judging from our NJ nbhd elemsch– they might just as well have studied the data from 15 yrs earlier. Cuz parents & teachers around here had totally bought into this by the time my eldest hit K in ’92. “Kindergarten today is what you remember as 1st grade,” the K-roundup guide warned me. And she was right: they were big redshirted lugs w/new front teeth already grown in.
NYCPSP said [1/27 5:30pm]: “By definition, a teacher cannot spend time on “certain advanced topics like alphabetizing words or recognizing fractions” UNLESS the majority of students already know how to read and have an understanding of numbers and counting!!” Indeed. That would be because in many places, reading & numeracy have already been successfully pushed down into PreK.
I get a weekly gander at a handful of different-style regional [central-NJ] PreK’s as a visiting “special.”
The wkg/midclass chain PreK is notably pushy in this regard, & the kids consequently have too much seat-time & teacher-directed activity, no art except teacher-directed cut&paste, minimal outdoor or unstructured indoor play. Today, the “KPrep” teacher was delivering a 1-on-1 test, asking each kid to identify the letters that made up different dictated phonemes. Results were predictable, as “KPrep” is a specific age group undifferentiated by maturity/ devpt. I have already observed that the oldest-looking/ acting kids in the group are familiar w/many printed words on sight [they pick them out when I’m telling a story from a bilingual-printed text]. Meanwhile the tyke being tested today– who has been undersized & less mature than age-peers since she started 3 yrs ago– couldn’t do it at all.
The other 3 schools I visit are a mix of so many factors [mixed class/ race, director philosophy, teacher experience] I don’t know how one could draw conclusions… Except in stark comparison to the above– because all 3 feature less teacher-directed activity, more arts, more play. The kids who stick out as most advanced/ intellectually curious in the above KPrep class are similar to all the 4-5y.o.’s in the other 3 schools.
The latter 3 [superior] schools certainly differ in curriculum– but that strikes me as a function of (a)more-seasoned teachers, & (b)encouraging kids to talk/ question/ discover answers together & thro their work.
Well, I am not sure academic rigor is good for anybody. It may be necessary for some fields of study, but good?
Who gives a hoot if 4-year-olds can survive rigor? Kids can survive many things; after all, they survived one billion years of evolution.
Besides, what I personally care about is not whether academic rigor helps my 4-year-old to calculate better than her peers, but if she sings happy songs, draws colorful pictures, dances in the sun, laughs, has dreams and fantasies. Rigor develops none of this.
“Rigor” is the latest magic bullet phrase. For parents weak of mind that worry about everything, they see “rigor” as the magic pill that will make everything right for their child.
These are parents that lack confidence in their ability to raise a child who will have a happy, successful life. Or they are just lazy and this lie, this empty promise, is another way to stay lazy. If “rigor” fails, then it isn’t the parents fault.
Before “Rigor” it was “Grit” and before “Grit” it was “Self Esteem”. Did I miss any fads between those three that made some con/fraud rich.
Each magic pill movement causes damage in the generation it was meant to turn into super humans that never lost or failed.
“Did I miss any fads between those three that made some con/fraud rich.”
Perhaps “Engagement”?
We can combine this stuff for deeper impact: “Kids need to be engaged to rigor as early as possible or they won’t find a job in the fierce competition of the 21st century.”
The next one will be “We need to make 4-year-olds marry rigor for life or they will not be able to shop around at the 21st-century job market, and will be confined to a miserable, lonely life in poverty.”
As the autocrats and their psychopath narcissist Eva Moskowitz clones bully children to comply and increase test scores, while force feeding them grit and rigor, the ratio of PTSD trauma is going to skyrocket. So will mass shootings when someone with PTSD goes ballistic.
Máté, BINGO. This is the con by which every ed-whim has been foisted on parents– and the general public– since A Nation at Risk. Because, job insecurity. And because, look at this shiny object [silver-bullet public-school teaching] while I continue to shred working and middle class financial security.
“The Leaning Tower of PISA”
Rigor is de rigueur
Testing is the norm
PISA is the figure
By which they gauge reform
(and even by that, it is a failure)
These and similar studies make us believe, people need to take more and part in creating technological advances. Actually, technological advances do more and more of our works, and so people should prepare for a future where they have to work less and less, and hence they need to learn to enjoy their ever-expanding free time.
But it needs to be a rigorous enjoyment of free time.
Or, SomeDAM, an enjoyment of the grit on the playground (as in getting dirty & gritty, or as my mom {o.b.m.} would say in the summer,
“Stop slamming the screen door & running in & out! And keep your gritty paws off the furniture*–wash your hands!!”
*The furniture was covered in clear plastic, anyway. Remember when you’d sit down in you shorts & your behind would stick to the plastic?
Ouch! The good old days! (I know…I’m old…)
Here is well-fitting metaphoric wisdom I offer to describe the topic of this research
The younger a child is when you throw her in deep water, the more likely she will drown.
I’m sure the rigor boosters would counter that children develop under water (in the womb) so throwing them back in at a very young age is really very natural.
Rigor in the Womb
Rigor in the womb
Without a lot of room
Breeds character, I’m told
And I, for one, am sold
As Diane said, the best time to expose kids to rigor is in the womb. Then they come to this world with the so called “natural rigor” or “organic rigor”. which is the best rigor you can find anywhere on the market. Naturally rigorous babies don’t need diaper, they suckle only when offered, they research and order the cheapest baby food for themselves, cry only when asked, start talking only when they know the appropriate grammar and clear pronunciation, they sleep through the night, waking up promptly with a smile and overall quiet disposition and without delay immerse themselves in meaningful studies that prepare them for a life spent in rigor and prosperity.
You are on a roll, Mate
You know what, SDP, let’s conduct an experiment involving not just a measly 20,000 kids, as it was done for the paper, but all the children in the country, and let’s find out which one of us is correct: you, thinking that newborns can survive in deep water longer than 3-year-olds, or I, claiming that survival in deep water strictly increases with age, all the way up to 18 years of age.
My only condition is to make the study rigorously scientific, full of charts, graphs, numbers, complicated formulas sporting Greek letters that are neatly decorated with upper and lower indices, and, of course, we do not want to forget the most important ingredient of the paper, the thousands of citations to references explaining the formulas.
We can decide the first authorship with arm-wrestling or with a bowling match; your choice. I also let you come up with the catchy title which will sound mysterious yet rigorous as it is quoted in Chalkbeat, New York Times and Fox News.
Don’t get me wrong.
That’s not MY hypothesis.
I’m just trying to think like a Rigormortist.
“I’m just trying to think like a Rigormortist.”
Of course, SDP, and I simply followed your line of thought to its logical conclusion: joint research to benefit the dark side. We could make millions, and we may be asked to write the next national standards for babies. I am ready if you are.
Rigorous Logic
The Rigormortists say:
The children shouldn’t play!
With rigor all the day
The Rigorgartens pay!
No need for research.
Just make stuff up like they usually do.
An argument for natural birth
The rigor of the birth
Is good, for what it’s worth
It gives the newborn grit
And helps them quite a bit
The section of the C
Is bad, it’s plain to see
Cuz birthing is a cinch
And newborn is a wimp
The study summary sets up a strawman at its outset: it implies that hidebound ed-experts view academic rigor and socio-emotional development as two ends of a zero-sum teeter-totter. As tho Piaget et al were simply saying “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” Meanwhile, they’re equating “academic rigor” with age-inappropriate concepts force-fed via teacher-dominated pedagogy. Worse, they define socio-emotional maturity as “shut up, sit still and listen,” while bizarrely assuming that’s the [hidebound ed-experts’] goal of play-& arts-based learning– another strawman.
See, they were right! You can push age-inappropriate academics into K, AND produce quiet, conformist kids! Win-win!
It’s no surprise that such uncreative thinking comes from uncreative people.
These “researchers” were probably not allowed to play as children so they are simply incapable of seeing the value of play.
Piaget vs Rigormortists
Piaget said “Let them play!”
Duncan said “No way!”
Coleman said “It’s testing day!”
What more is there to say?
Mate–I am in love w/all your comments today! (Well, pretty much all those anytime you post.)
I just had to look at your picture closer, as I was trying to see if that was a colander on your head, but, no, it looks like a scooped out melon–?!
Please solve the mystery, & tell us what it is! Thanx in advance!
Don Quixote wore a colander on his head
Are you sure that is not his brain which is just too big for his skull?
That is the indestructible protective helmet of the secret Dark Green Helmet Brigade. It was designed and created painstakingly by one of the female members while we planned our next mission in the heat of a summer night, long-long time ago.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Z82HaohxyxR4N3Ev5