A child starts reading and doing math at 4 years of age and then fails at the college. What is... - Page 2

[stlmomof2]

There is an emphasis on "process" writing where the teacher is not supposed to correct so much as guide in minimal ways. There are multiple drafts, peer reviews, students being in charge of their own writing, and all that feel good stuff. Educational theories now look down upon lot of grammar instruction, spelling quizzes, and other teaching involving privileging the right answers. In a way, though, I think the causes of a decline in writing are economic and the theories themselves are just labels after the fact. Adults in families are working more than they used to and have less time to spend one on one with their children, helping them with schoolwork or helping them get ready to enter school. In that way, economic decline is probably responsible for a decline in writing skills. SAHMs that volunteer at school and help with homework are probably more rare than they were when I was a child 20+ years ago.

[anechka]

Great comment, Velochic! You are right, we were tested after the 8th grade and those students who did not do well were given middle school diplomas and were advised to go to the trade school. In my case, I passed that test and stayed in the high school where they specialized more in math. However, I chose to pursue a degree in history. Go figure...

[anechka]

Somehow I have not seen such a big difference in the students I have taught so far. Perhaps it depends on the average income in the area? That cc where I teach now is located in very affluent area. I saw one of my students driving caynne (?) to the school last week! So I am assuming that the schools they went to were not too bad. But then again, why so many of them are not able to read on the basic level? At the same time, however three of my students from the last year have transferred to Prinston and one to Cornell. So we do get very bright students here but we also get many students who should not be in the college at all.

[stik]

I think your educational experience might not have been unusual for people who got PhDs at 25, but it probably is pretty atypical for the population as a whole. Likewise, I think if you took a look at the population of people in the US who get PhDs at 25 (i.e., at people who made incredibly rapid progress through the post-secondary educational system), you would find a lot of people like you who are puzzled at why so many people who have been in school for 12 years are still not entirely comfortable with what people who attain PhDs at age 25 would consider basic academic skills.

FWIW, teachers in secondary schools in the US are supposed to have bachelors degrees, and are only supposed to teach in subject areas in which they have at least 24 credit hours of instruction at the college level. It doesn't always happen, especially in remote, underprivileged, or rural communities, but they are *supposed to.*

[anechka]

Originally Posted by anechka

Somehow I have not seen such a big difference in the students I have taught so far. Perhaps it depends on the average income in the area? That cc where I teach now is located in very affluent area. I saw one of my students driving caynne (?) to the school last week! So I am assuming that the schools they went to were not too bad. But then again, why so many of them are not able to read on the basic level? At the same time, however three of my students from the last year have transferred to Prinston and one to Cornell. So we do get very bright students here but we also get many students who should not be in the college at all.

Sorry, I mean Princeton of course.

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by mandymichel

I don't think living in a screwed up place makes the survivors more successful than if they lived somewhere else. I work at inner city schools where there is lots of poverty, blight, crime, family dissolution, etc. in the students' lives. .

It's not even close to the same thing.

If you look at the success of educated immigrants in the US, it's hard to get away from the fact that they are more driven than most people born in the US.

I think it's the combination of a screwed up place PLUS a family that values education and has it's act together. Kids do best when their parents are educated and hard working, and you don't get a lot of that in the inner city.

[stlmomof2]

Originally Posted by anechka

Somehow I have not seen such a big difference in the students I have taught so far. Perhaps it depends on the average income in the area? That cc where I teach now is located in very affluent area. I saw one of my students driving caynne (?) to the school last week! So I am assuming that the schools they went to were not too bad. But then again, why so many of them are not able to read on the basic level? At the same time, however three of my students from the last year have transferred to Prinston and one to Cornell. So we do get very bright students here but we also get many students who should not be in the college at all.

Can you give examples of certain quantifiable skills that the students at the CC in the affluent area lack? I only have experience teaching writing at CCs in middle to lower class places and the low skills are very obvious (e.g. no ability to construct a grammatical complex sentence, no ability to put together a logical paragraph, profusion of formatting errors/typos, no overall coherent arguments, no ability to use evidence to support ideas, etc.). I would not expect to see academic issues like those at a community college in an affluent area with highly rated public schools, unless I only had students with learning disabilities. Is it possible that the students CAN read but they just don't want to? Like you assign reading but few of them do it? It sounds like they might be a lot of really unmotivated kids who really have no interest in being in college.

[Dar]

Originally Posted by noobmom

Good post, with one caveat. Of course the foreign students that come to the US are more mature, responsible, and better prepared. That would also be true of US students who study overseas. You're comparing a select group--both self-selected (had the initiative to seek opportunities for themselves) and by outside forces (admissions and scholarship committees). But, generally, I agree with you based on what I've observed of higher ed.

My daughter is attending high school in Russia this year. Her host sister (two weeks older) is really sweet but a lot less mature than Rain and the other exchange students there with her. I get the feeling that most of the Russians seem less mature to her... then again, Rain has always been more mature than most Americans her age.

The American students all attend elite high schools there, FWIW, as do the Russia students they know/live with... three at a liberal arts school and two at one that has more of a math/science focus.

Rain also notes that cheating is really common among Russian students at her school... really blatant cheating.

[velochic]

Originally Posted by Dar

Rain also notes that cheating is really common among Russian students at her school... really blatant cheating.

That's interesting. After university, when I lived in Moscow, I worked, on the side, with many students to tutor them in English. They all seemed to have a very keen sense of ethics and I would have been surprised to hear this. I wonder if it could be the competition of the school that influences this "get ahead at any cost" attitude. That can happen anywhere.

[MattBronsil]

Anechka, before I reply to your original post, there are some things I should point out about my own bias here:

1) I have yet to read any replies. Your original post raised many responses that may have already been brought up and addressed. I want to organize my thoughts on the original post before moving on to others.

2) I come from a VERY different perspective with education. I'm a Montessori teacher and grew up in Montessori schools. So what I suggest will mostly be from that experience. I'll try to point out where
I see clear differences between Montessori and most traditional systems of education.

3) I believe early childhood education is the key to stopping many of the problems you raise, but I'll bring that up more as I reply.

4) I had a lot to say initially and was unsure how to structure my reply. For the sake of making this easier, I am going through your post paragraphy by paragraph and replying. I hope you see this as making it easier than as a way to pick apart your post.

5) My comma on my keyboard is not working well, so I hope you can apologize any grammar errors if I leave out a comma. haha.

Originally Posted by anechka

I am a recent transplant from Russia, and I am very much dismayed over the American society’s heavy emphasis on early childhood education. Is it really necessary to begin educating kids very early in life?

Yes, but it must be done appropriately, which many programs are not. A major goal of education should be to develop the love of learning. Studies show that many students lose an interest in school by 2nd or 3rd grade, which shows us that many things are not working well with the current way we do things. What is essential is developing a child's:
--Concentration (not ability to pay attention. There is a huge difference)
--Interests
--Curiosity and love of learning
--Conflict resolution
--Respect for others

These things can happen in the right home environment as well, but in the correct environment, there are huge advantages to having them in a program that does help with this. For example, I don't know any person that readily wants to spend $30,000 for Montessori classroom materials as well as taking special training courses to learn how to work with them and present them; among other things.

That being said, I believe that there is no real need to send children as young as 4 or 5 to the school. At that age children should be mostly playing, preferably outside! and not spending hours doing homework.

You're talking about two different issues. Going to school and spending hours on homework are two COMPLETELY different issues.

Now I teach college here, in the US and so many of my students read and write very poorly and are not able to communicate their ideas effectively.

That's actually a recent phenomenon on the scale it is on. There are many reasons for it, including the standard base testing we have now in place, the rise of the internet and having a "fast" answer to almost any question, and many other factors. It has nothing to do, as far as I can see, with the fact that students are in school early. If that is a factor, it would be more the way the school is run...not the fact that they are there learning.

However, from my private conversations with them, I gather that they "learned how to read" when they were 4 or 5, and did basic math by the age 6. They spent 12!!!! years in school and the end result is such that they are utterly academically underprepared. I really do not know what to think of it. Any thoughts?

Your answer is in your question. Sounds like they had a good early childhood education program, but not a good elementary school program, which would fit what I said; especially when it comes to the testing our government has decided to adopt.

What your suggesting is actually quite opposite for me. From my experience, children tend to discover they can read (different from being taught how to read) between the ages of 4-6 in the right environment. They love it and the benefit of depriving a child from doing something educational they love doesn't seem to exist as far as I can see.

[Owen'nZoe]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move

It's not even close to the same thing.

If you look at the success of educated immigrants in the US, it's hard to get away from the fact that they are more driven than most people born in the US.

I think it's the combination of a screwed up place PLUS a family that values education and has it's act together. Kids do best when their parents are educated and hard working, and you don't get a lot of that in the inner city.

But again, you are looking at a select group of people from other countries. My DH is an immigrant from a developing country. It was not easy for him to get here, and most of the people he knew did not end up emigrating to a developed country, even those who really wanted to. You have to be fairly driven to end up here in the first place.

Anechka - I'm also curious about the students you are teaching. When I was in college, I helped a professor grade essays for a beginning composition course. I was absolutely appalled at the students' writing skills, but these were students who failed the entrance exam for writing, and were required to take the 100 level writing courses. Most incoming students wrote much better. Could it be that the portion of the student body that you are working with is skewing your impression? (I really don't know whether this is the case - I'm really just curious.)

[Ellien C]

Originally Posted by Dar

My daughter is attending high school in Russia this year. Her host sister (two weeks older) is really sweet but a lot less mature than Rain and the other exchange students there with her. I get the feeling that most of the Russians seem less mature to her... then again, Rain has always been more mature than most Americans her age.

I've met Rain. I call foul! She's a LOT more mature than anyone else her age, even here. No fair comparing her to her Russian counterparts.

[Mama Shifra]

The book Learning Gap: Why Our Schools Are Failing and What We Can Learn from Japanese and Chinese Education by Harold Stevenson explains that in many countries, early childhood is a carefree time, and with the start of first grade, the real work begins. In the United States, parents want their children to have an enriched childhood (preferably reading young), and then have a hands-off additude when their children enter school.

In the book Better Late Than Early: A New Approach to Your Child's Education by Raymond S. Moore, Dennis R. Moore, and Dorothy N. Moore, they advocated putting off academics until later than most Americans would accept. They pointed out that countries like Russia, that put off academics until 7, have greater academic success in the general population than here in the United States, which starts academics earlier.

[stlmomof2]

Originally Posted by Mama Shifra

In the book Better Late Than Early: A New Approach to Your Child's Education by Raymond S. Moore, Dennis R. Moore, and Dorothy N. Moore, they advocated putting off academics until later than most Americans would accept. They pointed out that countries like Russia, that put off academics until 7, have greater academic success in the general population than here in the United States, which starts academics earlier.

Are they also considering the people who get weeded out of the academic track when they're middle school aged? How could the researchers of that book have one standard of academic achievement when evaluating the general population of Russia? Aren't the kids who go to trade schools learning different things during their teenage years than the ones who go the academic route? Or is it a matter of the percentage of people in other countries who have basic skills (multiplication, 5th grade level reading) vs. the percentage in the U.S.?
One thing I've noticed over the years, after visiting numerous schools of different levels, is that I will always find the greatest amount of engagement and interest in learning in the low grades, even if it's schools that have terrible test scores and are in bad neighborhoods. A classroom of really enthused high school students is pretty unusual and noteworthy, even in highly rated schools. I have often wondered what makes the enthusiasm level drop. I imagine that school just gets boring after awhile. It doesn't take 12 years for everyone to learn what they are supposed to learn. Classrooms often have too many students and they have a broad range of abilities. So much time is wasted on discipline, tedious routine matters, principal interruptions, etc., etc. This whole scene gets really old. But it's hard for me to blame early education because preschool kids typically look like they're having a blast when they're learning (as long as it's not a dirty, negligent, abusive kind of program).

[lach]

For anyone interested in underperforming schools in the US, I can't recommend "The Schools We Need" by E.D. Hirsch enough. It's really eye opening.

[anechka]

Originally Posted by mandymichel

Can you give examples of certain quantifiable skills that the students at the CC in the affluent area lack? I only have experience teaching writing at CCs in middle to lower class places and the low skills are very obvious (e.g. no ability to construct a grammatical complex sentence, no ability to put together a logical paragraph, profusion of formatting errors/typos, no overall coherent arguments, no ability to use evidence to support ideas, etc.). I would not expect to see academic issues like those at a community college in an affluent area with highly rated public schools, unless I only had students with learning disabilities. Is it possible that the students CAN read but they just don't want to? Like you assign reading but few of them do it? It sounds like they might be a lot of really unmotivated kids who really have no interest in being in college.

Many of my freshmen are having trouble with the following basic elements of the research paper:

Thesis Statement
Use of evidence: Identification of relevant and credible primary sources.
Integration of quoted material into sentences.
Use of arguments and counterarguments.
Mechanics: Sentence structure, grammar and limited use of the passive voice.
I teach mostly 100 level history classes and there are no English prereqs for these courses. There were prereqs before I was hired but somehow they got dropped, and our department is currently trying to reinstall them. I have to say that juniors in my 200 level history classes do write better since they are required to take English Comp. prior to the enrollment.
I think that laziness and lack of motivation play a role here alone with the academic underpreparedness.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make earlier was that children are often pushed to learn academic subjects very early in life but they do not progress as they should be as time goes one. I believe that high school graduates should be able to understand basic mechanics of writing a research paper. I think we as a society need to put heavier emphasis on the secondary school and not be obsessed with getting our children to read and do math in daycare-preschool setting.

[anechka]

Originally Posted by Mama Shifra

The book Learning Gap: Why Our Schools Are Failing and What We Can Learn from Japanese and Chinese Education by Harold Stevenson explains that in many countries, early childhood is a carefree time, and with the start of first grade, the real work begins. In the United States, parents want their children to have an enriched childhood (preferably reading young), and then have a hands-off additude when their children enter school.

In the book Better Late Than Early: A New Approach to Your Child's Education by Raymond S. Moore, Dennis R. Moore, and Dorothy N. Moore, they advocated putting off academics until later than most Americans would accept. They pointed out that countries like Russia, that put off academics until 7, have greater academic success in the general population than here in the United States, which starts academics earlier.

Thank you for providing these sources! When I was in school, the compulsory education included first eight grades (from the age 7 to 15). After that some students will study for two more years in high school setting (although technically it is not called a "high school" as it is simply a continuation of the secondary school) and some would go to trade schools. And like I said before specializations do not really exist in the first 8 grades of the vast majority of regular secondary schools, so I'm assuming that in that "Better Late..." study they compare American and Russian students from elementary and middle schools.

[anechka]

What your suggesting is actually quite opposite for me. From my experience, children tend to discover they can read (different from being taught how to read) between the ages of 4-6 in the right environment. They love it and the benefit of depriving a child from doing something educational they love doesn't seem to exist as far as I can see.[/QUOTE]

MattBronsil, thank you for your extensive reply. I do believe that children should be taught when they are ready. I have recently read an interesting article by a Russian pediatric psychologist who says that majority of children are developmentally ready to read by the age 6.
As I said above, I went to the school when I was 7. I have spent 3 years prior to that in a day care where we mostly played. Occasionally we helped to serve breakfast and lunch to younger kids and help them dressed for walks outside. In the summer we also attempted to caltivate our little vegetable graden. The only activity that would be close to the academic learning was listening to the stories read by our teachers during the "story time". I also remember huge map of the world on the wall. Oh, we also did crafts which I absolutely hated! That is pretty much it. And of course, no homework!
I did start reading a little bit before I entered the school but most of the kids in our village including my brother, did not. Yet, by the age 10 they were already reading and comprehending the material, writing book reports, and doing simple math, among other things.

[Dar]

Originally Posted by Ellien C

I've met Rain. I call foul! She's a LOT more mature than anyone else her age, even here. No fair comparing her to her Russian counterparts.

Her, um, much older American boyfriend apparently agrees with you...

[MattBronsil]

I do believe that children should be taught when they are ready. I have recently read an interesting article by a Russian pediatric psychologist who says that majority of children are developmentally ready to read by the age 6.

I'll agree with that ONLY if it's the right environment. Learning reading by direct instruction is certainly not appropriate at that age. It really has to be a constructive process.