That was me that you described in the title. Honestly it had nothing to do with my abilities. I was always considered bright (was in the gifted classes) and so it was assumed that if I did poorly on something then there were other reasons for it. I remember in 6th grade doing a math make up quiz for fractions in the middle of class free time and my teacher being downright shocked I did so poorly on it. It was attributed to the class being noisy and I'm pretty sure that score was never figured into my grade. That's nice and all, but the problem was that I *didn't* know how to do fractions. Bright or not that was something I just never "got" - and after that quiz, no one taught me. For the most part in high school I skated through classes with B's, and some A's. I never had to really study for things, and thus never learned HOW to study or learn. Want to guess how long it took me to flunk out of college the first try? I still don't really know how to "study" for things, though can research just fine and am fortunate to have a good enough memory for details that I get by ok. For me it had nothing to do with what I learned as a child, but rather what I didn't learn as I got older that helped me fail so spectactularly at college. (Add in more freedom and some priority readjustment, and it was a recipe for disaster!)

 

I personally would look more at the years in between than blame early education for it.

 

I'll preface this by saying that I agree that early academics are not ideal for many kids and I am concerned about the push downwards of academic content.

What kind of college do you teach at? College is definitely a level that is streamed, and different colleges and universities will appeal to more or less academically inclined people.

I looked at the Wiki for Education in Russia (I couldn't quickly find better source data, and the citations seem pretty solid). It seems that there is a lot of streaming in Russian schooling. Might it be that you were streamed with other highly capable individuals, and that your "normal" is the other capable students who were likewise streamed, right into university?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Russia

 

I think that the issue builds from a sense of entitlement that is pervasive in American society. Everyone has the right to everything. BUT the RESPONSIBILITY that goes hand in hand with those rights somehow does not get accepted/expected.

So kids go through school getting their "rightful" education, but they do not necessarily take responsibility for their own learning.

I personally did not find very many of my peers in university were like this, but some definitely were.

Some had also worked hard in highschool and continued to work hard in university. They didn't all do great in everything, but the ones who were willing to work hard did succeed.

Personally, I think that starting formal education when a child is younger increases the risk of having problems with boredom and frustration for the child, so they would be more likely to "tune out" and not put forth effort later on in school.

Tjej

 

I don't know how it is in Russia but in this country, education is compulsory until the age of 16. Public education is available for everyone and everyone has to go. Additionally, everyone is expected to go to college. It's not really socially acceptable for any young adult to say, "I don't want to go to college." The result is that there is a huge range of abilities within classrooms and the teachers can't help but make public education too easy for some people and too hard for others. And community colleges and state universities enroll many people who aren't smart or motivated enough to go to college. In my experience, when I meet people from other countries, they generally think of colleges and universities as prestigious places. Here, we don't because we know tons of average people who go there. In this country, we try to make everyone take basically one educational path and it is to the detriment of everyone.
I suspect that the kids who get early academics are not generally the ones who don't have basic skills when they go to college. They might be the ones who say things like "Is this going to be on the test?" or "Just tell me what I need to do in order to get an A." In other words, those kids might be good at jumping through hoops and status seeking, but they're not intellectually curious. In my experience teaching at a university, there are lots of hoop jumpers with basic skills but no intellectual curiosity. In my experience teaching at community colleges, there are lots of students without basic skills. Both problems occur because all Americans internalize the need to go to college and not just especially smart, creative, motivated, inspired people who have the means to make scholarship an integral part of their lives.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by joensally I'll preface this by saying that I agree that early academics are not ideal for many kids and I am concerned about the push downwards of academic content. What kind of college do you teach at? College is definitely a level that is streamed, and different colleges and universities will appeal to more or less academically inclined people. I looked at the Wiki for Education in Russia (I couldn't quickly find better source data, and the citations seem pretty solid). It seems that there is a lot of streaming in Russian schooling. Might it be that you were streamed with other highly capable individuals, and that your "normal" is the other capable students who were likewise streamed, right into university? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Russia

I have taught freshmen at the private four year college, state university and am currently teaching at the community college. I have to say that I did not observe a huge difference in writing and reading comprehension skills between freshmen in 4 year schools and freshmen in the community college.

I went to the school during the Soviet times and back then the streaming was not as common as it is today, and it was mostly done at the big city schools. I grew up in one of the remote corners of Siberia, and for the most part I went to ordinary public schools. My elementary school was a one room school where the students from all three grades were studying simultaneously in one room. What fun that was! I have spent my last two and half years at the secondary school belonging to the Department of Railroad Transportation and yes, they placed heavier emphasis on math.

 

It's a good question. I agree with the PP who said we need to look into what happens in between. I would also note that the US "system" isn't known for producing math whizzes but we do have a lot of industry and entrepreneurs.

So what is the value of that education? Is it to go to college and succeed? Or might it be useful for starting a business, taking risks etc?

I would also agree about CC and State colleges. I talked to one of my business professors once about how different it really was at my private college as he had also taught at a state school before. He was like - OMG there is a HUGE difference at this kind of college than what you have at a state school.

And community college is a WHOLE other thing. A friend of mine taught creative writing at a CC and I attended a couple of her classes once, because I was really curious about what it was like. And then she shared her students essays with me. They were these incredibly personal essays about teen pregnancy, gang violence, growing up etc. And she had to give some of the students Ds and Fs. And I was like - how can you do this? How do you rate them, these essays are SO personal, but clearly almost incomprehensible. She had a really good attitude about it. There was a very clear "grading table" where everything was worth so many points - thesis statement, topic sentence, correct grammar etc. She talked about not doing them any favors for grading the content and not the mechanics. She said they had the opportunity to submit the essays again and there was a writing lab available to them where they could take their grading tables and get help. If they chose not to avail themselves of the help available to them, then it was Ds and Fs.

Now obviously, this was VERY different from my college. I totally respected her for that.

I think part of the push for early formal education is simply having care available. My school district is middle income on down and we have all-day kindy. Our community needs that and values it. The wealthier districts near us are "still" in half-day kindy because that's what works there.

I think some more public funding toward early childhood care could reverse the trend toward earlier formal education.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandymichel . I suspect that the kids who get early academics are not generally the ones who don't have basic skills when they go to college. They might be the ones who say things like "Is this going to be on the test?" or "Just tell me what I need to do in order to get an A." In other words, those kids might be good at jumping through hoops and status seeking, but they're not intellectually curious. .

This got me thinking

.

I can't find them just now, but there are a few studies that show a real difference in school attitude/achievement at mid-primary (gr3 I think) between kids who've attended "academic" preschools vs play-based or montesorri, with montessori having a slight advantage over play-based, particularly for boys. Academic preschooled kids tended to demonstrate just the attitude described above. This is in aggregates, so doesn't address individual variation.

While looking for those studies, because I hate not having cites to offer (!), I found this:
http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/prevention/hiscope.html
which finds gains into adulthood for impoverished kids who attend "high-quality, active learning program for 3- and 4-year olds." It doesn't share the nature of the program, although it's described as developmentally appropriate, so I don't know how much academics would be emphasized. This is the problem in N. America - preschool is fairly pervasive, but the type and quality of those preschools is so varied that I don't know that we can make sweeping generalizations.

That said, I've heard of and seen studies (sorry, again no cites

) that show that where countries introduce academics later (~7), there are lower high school dropout rates. I think that a lot of this relates to the emphasis on social play in the years leading up to the introduction of academics, and that more kids are developmentally ready for academics. I have certainly witnessed kids in my children's classes who have internalized negative messages about themselves when they just weren't ready to read fluently at 6. The other value in social and play-based experiences in the early years is the improved development of executive function skills, which would certainly increase a child's ability to attend to later instruction and personal planning.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by anechka I have taught freshmen at the private four year college, state university and am currently teaching at the community college. I have to say that I did not observe a huge difference in writing and reading comprehension skills between freshmen in 4 year schools and freshmen in the community college. I went to the school during the Soviet times and back then the streaming was not as common as it is today, and it was mostly done at the big city schools. I grew up in one of the remote corners of Siberia, and for the most part I went to ordinary public schools. My elementary school was a one room school where the students from all three grades were studying simultaneously in one room. What fun that was! I have spent my last two and half years at the secondary school belonging to the Department of Railroad Transportation and yes, they placed heavier emphasis on math.

I'm ignorant of the education system in Russia other than what I read in the Wiki, so my apologies. According to the Wiki entry, kids with various levels of SNs would go to specialized classes - so would the classroom you attended have included children with SNs? I'm referring specifically to your statement that your experience of flowing through school all the way to a PhD is not uncommon - it might not be in a cohort of kids where no child has SNs and where layers of post-secondary are free or heavily subsidized.

I hope that none of this is taken as an attack; I am genuinely curious about your experience and the whole concept of early versus late academics generally

.

 

I lived in Russia during the 90's. My undergrad degree is in Slavic Linguistics and I was at MGU post -grad. I know a little bit about the Russian schooling system.

I don't think there is a link between early academics and later failure. I think two things are at play here and they have nothing to do with early academics.

First of all, in these countries where academics are started later (including Russia and Germany), often aptitude tests are given around middle/high school and kids move into a track of instruction based on that. Someone who is better with their hands will go into trade school track and someone who is intellectually more adept will go through what we would call college-prep track. In some countries they don't even get a choice. I think this cuts WAY down on failing later because from the age of 12 or 13, their possibilities are not WIDE OPEN like they are for a kid in the US. They have to do what they have to do because it was determined when they were going through puberty.

So, a kid in the US is looking 18 years old in the eye still has not figured out what to do with his/her life or even what to major in, but in other areas of the world, they are told at 12, "THIS is what you will do." It's the decision making that is difficult and causes problems.

However, I also think that American schools do not teach critical thinking and kids are often raised with a feeling of entitlement. This follows with them not having to make decisions until they're 18. At 18, and IN GENERAL, kids are not NEARLY as mature in the US as they are in other parts of the world. Dh is a university professor in a discipline that has over 50% foreign student enrollment and he notes that the foreign students are much more mature, responsible, and better prepared.

I have more to say, but no time for it right now. That's my

for now.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by anechka 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!

I agree. When my kids were young we homeschooled in a relaxed way. One of my children started reading at 7, the other at 8. They started formal schooling at 10 and 12, and quickly went to the top of their classes. (One is gifted and one has mild special needs, yet the both read and write better than their peers, and both have far larger vocabularies).

Both "Miseduationreschoolers at Risk" by Elkind and "Your Child's Growing Mind" by Healy present cases that early academics can be damaging.

My experience with public school is limited to a well funded school with good test scores, involved parents, and small classes. The kids do a lot of writing, and by 7th grade can pop out an organized 5 paragragh essay with one hand tied behind their backs.

My Dh is British and grew up in Belfast, N. Ireland. We know so many super successful people from there. Besides the school system being different, I think part of it is that they are edgier and more driven. I think that growing up someplace really screwed up can make someone (if they survive) more successful because they develop personal strengths that privilaged American kids have no opportunity to develop.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by velochic I lived in Russia during the 90's. My undergrad degree is in Slavic Linguistics and I was at MGU post -grad. I know a little bit about the Russian schooling system. I don't think there is a link between early academics and later failure. I think two things are at play here and they have nothing to do with early academics. First of all, in these countries where academics are started later (including Russia and Germany), often aptitude tests are given around middle/high school and kids move into a track of instruction based on that. Someone who is better with their hands will go into trade school track and someone who is intellectually more adept will go through what we would call college-prep track. In some countries they don't even get a choice. I think this cuts WAY down on failing later because from the age of 12 or 13, their possibilities are not WIDE OPEN like they are for a kid in the US. They have to do what they have to do because it was determined when they were going through puberty. So, a kid in the US is looking 18 years old in the eye still has not figured out what to do with his/her life or even what to major in, but in other areas of the world, they are told at 12, "THIS is what you will do." It's the decision making that is difficult and causes problems. However, I also think that American schools do not teach critical thinking and kids are often raised with a feeling of entitlement. This follows with them not having to make decisions until they're 18. At 18, and IN GENERAL, kids are not NEARLY as mature in the US as they are in other parts of the world. Dh is a university professor in a discipline that has over 50% foreign student enrollment and he notes that the foreign students are much more mature, responsible, and better prepared. I have more to say, but no time for it right now. That's my for now.

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.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by velochic First of all, in these countries where academics are started later (including Russia and Germany), often aptitude tests are given around middle/high school and kids move into a track of instruction based on that. Someone who is better with their hands will go into trade school track and someone who is intellectually more adept will go through what we would call college-prep track. In some countries they don't even get a choice. I think this cuts WAY down on failing later because from the age of 12 or 13, their possibilities are not WIDE OPEN like they are for a kid in the US. They have to do what they have to do because it was determined when they were going through puberty.

This totally answers the question as far as I'm concerned. In Russia, only intellectually capable students go the college-prep track and then go to college. The others get trained to do something else. In the U.S., we say, "Everyone should graduate from college. Anyone can do it." Here it would be totally taboo to tell a high school student, "You should go to a trade school." Everyone just dogmatically tells all young people that they deserve to go to college. So, colleges here are filled with people who don't want to be there and/or can't do the work.
Having taught at both a 4 year state university and community colleges, I definitely see a difference in the type of students. I taught writing and on the due dates for papers, at the state university, I would be lugging around a mountain of papers. At the community colleges, I would get a modest stack and more would filter in for the following few weeks. Students at the 4 year school would usually meet the length requirements. Community college students were all over the map with this. A lot more totally obvious plagiarism shows up in community colleges. If I had given totally honest grades, the average at the 4 year school would have been a low C and probably a low D at the community colleges. I also gave a lot of bad grades at the community colleges, which did not make my life easy, but I really thought it was wrong to let students think they were passable writers when they weren't. It became a very sad and pointless endeavor. Now I'm teaching high school because I have a lot more time to really help kids rather than just indicate to them they weren't prepared to begin with.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linda on the move My Dh is British and grew up in Belfast, N. Ireland. We know so many super successful people from there. Besides the school system being different, I think part of it is that they are edgier and more driven. I think that growing up someplace really scre make someone (if they survive) more successful because they develop personal strengths that privilaged American kids have no opportunity to develop.

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. The students who are doing relatively well academically would be considered mediocre students in wealthier districts. Brighter and more motivated students can see how low the standards are at the schools due to the fact that most of the kids have such low skills, poor behavior, poor work ethic, etc. So they feel justified in slacking off quite a bit, too. Also, no matter how privileged an American kid is relatively speaking, we're all the center of our own universes. Divorce, bullying, drug abuse, learning disabilities, unrequited love, and other problems happen to the upper class, too, and "privileged" kids could use those things as challenges to make themselves stronger.

 

Please also remember there is a difference between "early childhood education" and "early academics".

At the multi age preschool I teach at (it is Reggio-inspired) we do play based learning/emergent curriculum. We are only "teaching" what the children are interested in and facilitating them along the way at their own individual level.

The Kindy teachers who get our children tell us every year how it is so obvious which kids came from our play-based center vs. the ones with no preschool experience and the ones who come from a more academic based pre-k.

And they mean obvious in the OUTSTANDING way. I promise i'm not trying to brag here...just pointing out that when we nurture the children at a young age and help them develop their interests along the way it makes a HUUUGE difference for them in terms of self-esteem and motivation to learn (as opposed to sitting down and doing worksheets/having scheduled lessons/testing etc.

Quality of the program is essential!

 

In my corner of the world, I have noticed a pretty large discrepancy between the expectations teachers had of me when I was in elementary/junior high/high school and the expectations my children's teachers have of them.

We were also tested and "tracked" based on academic ability. By 8th grade we were expected to write large papers, cite resources, have correct grammar, sentence structure etc.

We were required to correct our mistakes. We were taught cursive writing until it looked good. We were taught math in increasing levels of difficulty.

I have noticed that my children do not have the same expectations placed upon them for good writing, correct spelling, etc. until they reach the upper grades. The attitude seems to be one of 'not yet' for correct spelling and such. So by the time the teachers start correcting this on papers, a lot of bad habits have developed.

I do a lot of hiring in my job. I have seen a gradual but steady decline in the writing of new graduates over the last 10 years--even resumes and cover letters with spelling and grammar errors. It is getting harder to find people to hire that write well, and this is in a field that requires a lot of writing.

My opinion is that the elementary and secondary schools are reducing their expectations and requirements around these issues and that good writing is on the decline because of it.

 

I think you'd also find a lot of Americans who are totally dismayed at the very strict, intensive, and structured education students in the USSR received.

(I still go weak at the knees when I see the amazingly gorgeous handwriting taught in the USSR. I want my kids to write like that!)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by lauren In my corner of the world, I have noticed a pretty large discrepancy between the expectations teachers had of me when I was in elementary/junior high/high school. We were also tested and "tracked" based on academic ability. By 8th grade we were expected to write large papers, cite resources, have correct grammar, sentence structure etc. We were required to correct our mistakes. We were taught cursive writing until it looked good. We were taught math in increasing levels of difficulty. I have noticed that my children do not have the same expectations placed upon them for good writing, correct spelling, etc. until they reach the upper grades. The attitude seems to be one of 'not yet' for correct spelling and such. So by the time the teachers start correcting this on papers, a lot of bad habits have developed. I do a lot of hiring in my job. I have seen a gradual but steady decline in the writing of new graduates over the last 10 years--even resumes and cover letters with spelling and grammar errors. It is getting harder to find people to hire that write well, and this is in a field that requires a lot of writing. My opinion is that the elementary and secondary schools are reducing their expectations and requirements around these issues and that good writing is on the decline because of it.

I agree with all this. It makes me sad. It also makes me a little angry, because the good private schools still have high expectations at early grades, but of course those cost a lot of money.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by joensally I'm ignorant of the education system in Russia other than what I read in the Wiki, so my apologies. According to the Wiki entry, kids with various levels of SNs would go to specialized classes - so would the classroom you attended have included children with SNs? I'm referring specifically to your statement that your experience of flowing through school all the way to a PhD is not uncommon - it might not be in a cohort of kids where no child has SNs and where layers of post-secondary are free or heavily subsidized. I hope that none of this is taken as an attack; I am genuinely curious about your experience and the whole concept of early versus late academics generally .

No worries. I have only attended specialized classes during my last two years at the secondary school under the Department of r/r transp. There were no specialized classes in the schools I have attended prior to that. In fact, only one of my friends in the grad school attended them but she lived in a big city and was born into a privileged strata. Her mother was the leader of the local communist party branch. So much for the Marx's equality

But the teachers in all of my schools were great. Almost all of them were graduates of pedagogical colleges and state universities. Virtually all of them had bachelor degrees in specific discilplines - geography, math, language and they taught ONLY their specialties. For instances, the English language teacher would never be allowed to teach Russian language, history or political science.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.*

 

Quote:

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.

 

Quote:

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.