That site summarizes multiple studies on the negative effects of retention. You can just ignore the parts about Ohio's law specifically in the beginning and read the bullets. It lists the studies by author so you can look them up.
All of these studies are for older kids. There is a huge difference between a 5 year old and 9 year old. Not only that I will argue it has more to do with skills, SES and actual intelligence than retention.
Right, I agree with you. But there is still a chance that retention has negative effects on kindergarteners and so I wouldn't increase the risk of needing to do it by sending a 4 year old. If a child is 6 at the end of kinder and the teacher recommends retention, that is a different scenario that was likely unavoidable.
And let's be honest, I don't know of many middle class or upper middle class kids who don't finish high school. College may not be for everyone but high school is. I know they exist but the biggest risk factor (IMO) is SES and the stress that puts on the family.
nursecramer I think It depends on the classroom being age appropriate. No one here is arguing the benefits of preschool. We are talking about kids too young to be starting kindy. Many of our public schools here have 3yo and 4yo CD classes. These kids will be ready for kindy and way ahead of many of their peers, considering the alternative. (Many are LSES and free lunch.)
The articles I cited are specifically discussing entrance to K. Can you indicate which studies show that counter-indicate early entrance for a child who exceeds academic expectations and is within a month or so of the age cutoff?
The practices in a k classroom are not developmentally appropriate for younger kids. They get labeled as having behavioral problems, a label that often follows them for years. I haven't gotten a chance to look at studies on this today but I can tell you from years of experience as a teacher, this is absolutely true. Good teachers will say, "he struggles with impulse control and one of our goals is hand raising for questions" while a bad teacher would say, "he refuses to listen and is a trouble maker" But no matter how you frame it, there we huge gaps in age appropriate behavior for a 4vs 5 year old. They just aren't ready for the expectations of an elementary classroom. And kids learning to think of themselves as "bad" because of their behavior has been studied to death and is very detrimental. It isn't just about being smart, it is also about being in an environment where s/he can succeed.
The practices in a k classroom are not developmentally appropriate for younger kids. They get labeled as having behavioral problems, a label that often follows them for years. I haven't gotten a chance to look at studies on this today but I can tell you from years of experience as a teacher, this is absolutely true. Good teachers will say, "he struggles with impulse control and one of our goals is hand raising for questions" while a bad teacher would say, "he refuses to listen and is a trouble maker" But no matter how you frame it, there we huge gaps in age appropriate behavior for a 4vs 5 year old. They just aren't ready for the expectations of an elementary classroom. And kids learning to think of themselves as "bad" because of their behavior has been studied to death and is very detrimental. It isn't just about being smart, it is also about being in an environment where s/he can succeed.
This is where linking to actual research would help you. Because all the research I have found (posted above) says that when a child passes the early admission test, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in their academic progress compared to their peers, and that children who pass the test and are not admitted early may actually suffer for it. What evidence supports your claims?
Also... last night when I entered this discussion, I thought I was on CEP and only this morning did I realize I had fat-fingered and ended up on DWP. Perhaps basing arguments in peer-reviewed research is not the norm on this board?
lol. Yes, I base all my arguments on whimsy and magic 8 balls. Actually, I agree, I said nothing about suffering academically. It is socially that they would suffer. So I guess it boils down to what's more important, a super smart special snowflake you can brag about or a well adjusted kid who grows into a well adjusted adult with friends as a result of a positive social experience beginning at the age of 5 with peers who will surround him for 13 years. I mean, what do I know, this is only an age group I've worked with for years and I have a master's degree in it. Whatevsa
The practices in a k classroom are not developmentally appropriate for younger kids. They get labeled as having behavioral problems, a label that often follows them for years. I haven't gotten a chance to look at studies on this today but I can tell you from years of experience as a teacher, this is absolutely true. Good teachers will say, "he struggles with impulse control and one of our goals is hand raising for questions" while a bad teacher would say, "he refuses to listen and is a trouble maker" But no matter how you frame it, there we huge gaps in age appropriate behavior for a 4vs 5 year old. They just aren't ready for the expectations of an elementary classroom. And kids learning to think of themselves as "bad" because of their behavior has been studied to death and is very detrimental. It isn't just about being smart, it is also about being in an environment where s/he can succeed.
This is where linking to actual research would help you. Because all the research I have found (posted above) says that when a child passes the early admission test, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in their academic progress compared to their peers, and that children who pass the test and are not admitted early may actually suffer for it. What evidence supports your claims?
Also... last night when I entered this discussion, I thought I was on CEP and only this morning did I realize I had fat-fingered and ended up on DWP. Perhaps basing arguments in peer-reviewed research is not the norm on this board?
Oh FFS yes we are a bunch of uneducated SAHM who don't know what peer-reviewed research is. Oh wait that's not the case at all.
Lol at a child that passes an early admission text. You obviously missed the fact that a lot of districts don't even give an early admission test. That being said. School is way way more than academics. Antidotal evidence and all. My child would have been fine going a year ahead academically she would have bombed socially. It would have had devastating effects on her no doubt. School is not all about reading and math.
Post by andrewsgal on Apr 12, 2015 15:31:59 GMT -5
This actually helps make my point. But research says academically they will be totes fine. Great. lets just totally ignore the social aspect of a 4 year old in a class with 6 year olds.
lol. Yes, I base all my arguments on whimsy and magic 8 balls. Actually, I agree, I said nothing about suffering academically. It is socially that they would suffer. So I guess it boils down to what's more important, a super smart special snowflake you can brag about or a well adjusted kid who grows into a well adjusted adult with friends as a result of a positive social experience beginning at the age of 5 with peers who will surround him for 13 years. I mean, what do I know, this is only an age group I've worked with for years and I have a master's degree in it. Whatevsa
did you check out the meta analysis I referenced? because they examined academic and social outcomes. I'm glad that this is an area in which you have experience and training; it should be easy for you to share the studies that show a detrimental effect on early admission for children deemed ready by the district and parents.
I actually read both articles you posted and the majority of the studies referenced were about retention at a third grade level. I don't hink anyone is arguing that retention at that age is good, obviously all the studies have said it' not. Can you point me in the direction of where the studies talked about a child at 4 being just as successful as a child at 6?
lol. Yes, I base all my arguments on whimsy and magic 8 balls. Actually, I agree, I said nothing about suffering academically. It is socially that they would suffer. So I guess it boils down to what's more important, a super smart special snowflake you can brag about or a well adjusted kid who grows into a well adjusted adult with friends as a result of a positive social experience beginning at the age of 5 with peers who will surround him for 13 years. I mean, what do I know, this is only an age group I've worked with for years and I have a master's degree in it. Whatevsa
did you check out the meta analysis I referenced? because they examined academic and social outcomes. I'm glad that this is an area in which you have experience and training; it should be easy for you to share the studies that show a detrimental effect on early admission for children deemed ready by the district and parents.
Parents deeming a child ready means absolutely nothing. They don't have the knowledge of education and child development necessary to make that decision on their own (Unless they are educators themselves). And districts either 1) don't have screening for admission or readiness or 2) only screen academic skills. Being academically ready is not the same as being socially and emotionally ready. I'm not going to whip out my text books and journals to pull up studies for you because, to be honest, the fact that a 4 Yo cannot function in a classroom the same way as a 6 yo has been so well accepted by the educational community that I don't even known if there are studies. It is just part of child development. If you want to read up on DAPs, I recommend vygotsky, piaget, and erikson. Once you understand how the brains of children 5 and under develop and the enormous step taken in only a year, this will be obvious to you, too. Like I'm kind of mind fucked that there are people who need peer reviewed studies to accept that a 4 Yo will not be as successful as a 6 yo in kindergarten.
I actually read both articles you posted and the majority of the studies referenced were about retention at a third grade level. I don't hink anyone is arguing that retention at that age is good, obviously all the studies have said it' not. Can you point me in the direction of where the studies talked about a child at 4 being just as successful as a child at 6?
Those were not posted by me. I referenced a meta analysis by Feldhusen.
Proctor, Black, and Feldhusen did a meta-analysis of 21 other studies and found no effect or preference for early admission for children who showed readiness at an earlier age, depending on whether the samples were matched.
What THE RESEARCH (not me) suggests is that it is appropriate to consider early admission for 4 year olds who are performing at high levels academically.
Stuck in the box. This is the issue! You are posting and referencing studies that are talking about 4 year olds performing at "high levels of academics" let's talk typically developing kids since 99% of our kids are. Not to mention that the "high level of academics" was never defined in these studies. So that alone seems to blow this out of the water. Find me a study that focuses not on highly achieving children but on typically developing ones.
I actually read both articles you posted and the majority of the studies referenced were about retention at a third grade level. I don't hink anyone is arguing that retention at that age is good, obviously all the studies have said it' not. Can you point me in the direction of where the studies talked about a child at 4 being just as successful as a child at 6?
Those were not posted by me. I referenced a meta analysis by Feldhusen.
Proctor, Black, and Feldhusen did a meta-analysis of 21 other studies and found no effect or preference for early admission for children who showed readiness at an earlier age, depending on whether the samples were matched.
Of course 4 year olds and 6 year olds are not academically equivalent, rosesandpetals. That's a strawman argument if I ever heard one. What THE RESEARCH (not me) suggests is that it is appropriate to consider early admission for 4 year olds who are performing at high levels academically. According to Culross et al, "the child should demonstrate skill levels above the mean of the grade desired." As far as how the child should be judged for social and behavioral issues, they write "Public-school teachers are sometimes unduly pessimistic about children's social–emotional maturity. For a precocious child, they might often confuse a child's misbehavior, which is caused by dissatisfaction with inappropriate instruction, with immaturity. Judgments about a precocious child's maturity should therefore include input from parents and the psychologists."
Finally, "Grade advancement decisions should be based on facts rather than myths. Examination of the research contributes to academic achievement. No negative effects on social or emotional development have been identified. If adjustment problems occur, they tend to be minor and temporary in nature. Conversely, failure to advance a precocious child may result in poor study habits, apathy, lack of motivation and maladjustments" (Feldhusen, Proctor, and Black). So there you go, andrewsgal. Not only can 4yo have outcomes similar to a 6yo, but withholding them from grade advancement may actually cause them to have poorer outcomes.
So I have to know, rosepetals, do you eschew evidence-based decisions in other areas of your life? Are you convinced vaccines cause autism? Do you think climate change is a myth?
Yes, vaccines cause autism. I know beca use I read a peer reviewed study by Wakefield MD instead of listening to professionals in that area.
Also, that quote you listed bases its arguments on teachers confusing a child's dissatisfaction with immaturity. Okay, if you are going to work on the assumption that teachers are confused then I don't know what to tell you. I am a professional in that field and based on years of professional training and exp, including years of professional development, I know that 4 yos in kinder is almost never a good idea. But you have a peer reviewed study so what the hell do I know?
Anyone else feel sorry for her kid's teachers? Good Lord.
Those were not posted by me. I referenced a meta analysis by Feldhusen. Of course 4 year olds and 6 year olds are not academically equivalent, rosesandpetals. That's a strawman argument if I ever heard one. What THE RESEARCH (not me) suggests is that it is appropriate to consider early admission for 4 year olds who are performing at high levels academically. According to Culross et al, "the child should demonstrate skill levels above the mean of the grade desired." As far as how the child should be judged for social and behavioral issues, they write "Public-school teachers are sometimes unduly pessimistic about children's social–emotional maturity. For a precocious child, they might often confuse a child's misbehavior, which is caused by dissatisfaction with inappropriate instruction, with immaturity. Judgments about a precocious child's maturity should therefore include input from parents and the psychologists."
Finally, "Grade advancement decisions should be based on facts rather than myths. Examination of the research contributes to academic achievement. No negative effects on social or emotional development have been identified. If adjustment problems occur, they tend to be minor and temporary in nature. Conversely, failure to advance a precocious child may result in poor study habits, apathy, lack of motivation and maladjustments" (Feldhusen, Proctor, and Black). So there you go, andrewsgal. Not only can 4yo have outcomes similar to a 6yo, but withholding them from grade advancement may actually cause them to have poorer outcomes.
So I have to know, rosepetals, do you eschew evidence-based decisions in other areas of your life? Are you convinced vaccines cause autism? Do you think climate change is a myth?
Yes, vaccines cause autism. I know beca use I read a peer reviewed study by Wakefield MD instead of listening to professionals in that area.
Also, that quote you listed bases its arguments on teachers confusing a child's dissatisfaction with immaturity. Okay, if you are going to work on the assumption that teachers are confused then I don't know what to tell you. I am a professional in that field and based on years of professional training and exp, including years of professional development, I know that 4 yos in kinder is almost never a good idea. But you have a peer reviewed study so what the hell do I know?
Anyone else feel sorry for her kid's teachers? Good Lord.
This is the same logic that has been used by congress in our state to pass laws on education. The research says instead of actually taking real teachers, children and their experiences into account. Shocking education in general is an absolute mess.
Once again there should be a national age cutoff that makes all kids 5 before entering school. You know just in case not all four year olds are "advanced" according to the research.
Post by rosesandpetals on Apr 12, 2015 19:00:55 GMT -5
But the (one) peer reviewed study says so ag!!! I can see her bringing studies to parent teacher conferences. "Are you sure Tommy is bad at math and not just dissatisfied with your teaching? This study disagrees, why are you eschewing it?"
Post by rosesandpetals on Apr 12, 2015 19:35:39 GMT -5
Kids misbehave because of inappropriate teaching strategies and teachers have unfounded resistance to early admission in k. All the problems are the teachers fault. I draw all of my conclusions based on research and experience -- you are drawing yours based on isolated studies in a field you (quite obviously) don't work in. That's a very narrow scope.
Who are these "peers" that review peer reviewed journals? Could it maybe be other professionals with exp and education? Hmmmmmmmmm........
And now I'm done. Because this is like talking to a wall.
Yes, vaccines cause autism. I know beca use I read a peer reviewed study by Wakefield MD instead of listening to professionals in that area.
Also, that quote you listed bases its arguments on teachers confusing a child's dissatisfaction with immaturity. Okay, if you are going to work on the assumption that teachers are confused then I don't know what to tell you. I am a professional in that field and based on years of professional training and exp, including years of professional development, I know that 4 yos in kinder is almost never a good idea. But you have a peer reviewed study so what the hell do I know?
Anyone else feel sorry for her kid's teachers? Good Lord.
Where do you think medical professionals form their opinions? Based on research! So if you are an educational professional, please, show me some research. You may have teaching experience but why not draw on the knowledge and carefully designed studies of others?
Also, it makes perfect sense that you are so against early placement, if you are in early childhood ed. Gagné and Gagnier (2004, The socio‐affective and academic impact of early entrance to school, Roeper Review, 26:3, 128-138) documented the unfounded resistance of teachers to early K admission. They found that the K teachers were biased in their evaluations of early admitted students, and that teachers who were unaware of the early admission status judged the students as the same as or higher ranking than their older peers.
Still waiting for that peer reviewed research that is not talking about "academically advanced" kids.
Post by rosesandpetals on Apr 12, 2015 19:40:18 GMT -5
And also if someone ever said to me " my kindergartener is dissatisfied with your inappropriate teaching strategies and that is why he is acting out." I would just assume their misbehavior was a learned trait and fully expect that parent to be a constant source of eye rolling in the teachers lounge for years to come.
Ps @tooshort stay!! Don't let one crappy gbcb run you off!
And also if someone ever said to me " my kindergartener is dissatisfied with your inappropriate teaching strategies and that is why he is acting out." I would just assume their misbehavior was a learned trait and fully expect that parent to be a constant source of eye rolling in the teachers lounge for years to come.
Ps @tooshort stay!! Don't let one crappy gbcb run you off!
Post by rosesandpetals on Apr 12, 2015 20:14:04 GMT -5
Lol that my opinions are based on anecdotes. Know what I do when trying to understand a field of education I've never taught? Tell experienced and qualified teachers that their opinions arent based in fact. You are too much. I don't spend my time looking up studies I used to form my opinions so I can quote them on the internet to prove I know what I'm talking about to a stranger. Guess you'll just have to assume my practices are dissatisfying my students And take your offensive studies somewhere else.
I don't know about the overly pessimistic one though, since I haven't worked inn a public school in years. Wonder if private school teachers are equally pessimistic or if their opinions are valid. /shrug
Still waiting for that peer reviewed research that is not talking about "academically advanced" kids.
I don't know what you are asking for. Are the quotation marks suggesting that there are no academically advanced 4 year olds? You want to know whether all 4yo should be in K? You are looking for studies about how average 5-6 year olds do in K?
No I had an advanced four year old of course they exist. I was simply pointing out that the research you posted is about advanced kids not typically developing kids, which in reality is what we are talking about. My point being that you are basing your opinion on "academically advanced" four year olds, when a typically developing one is more reality for most people. You have yet to show me research that says that there is nothing detrimental to starting a typical 4 year old early which was the point of this post.
BTW of full disclose I refused to push my child ahead and she was "academically advanced"
Post by andrewsgal on Apr 12, 2015 20:20:19 GMT -5
Also I have to say it's funny pulling the I am a teacher card of course I know. I also have my masters and teaching degree. However I am a special education teacher. I know what I don't know and often defer to the ladies on this board when it comes to questions about early childhood. Teaching high school and even earning a PHD doesn't mean you know all there is to know about kids in kinder.
Does this research exclude states that have no early entrance exam?
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to understand. It's my understanding there is no universal testing.
They cited studies where the 4yo students were assessed and found to be performing at a level above the average performance of the older students. (Some of those assessments may have been done by the district, or the researchers themselves, or both-- their recommendations were based on many many studies.) Those students continued to remain at the top of their classes throughout their academic careers.
Studies where average performing 4yo were admitted early did not have the same benefits-- they were found to perform in the lower portions of their classes for the next several years. So if my child was in a district that did not have assessments for early entrance and would grant it based on parental request only, I would seek out another professional evaluation before making the choice.
So I have been correct all this time? Thanks that's all I needed to know. Thanks for assuming we were all idiots who didn't know how to read or find proper research.
Also I have to say it's funny pulling the I am a teacher card of course I know. I also have my masters and teaching degree. However I am a special education teacher. I know what I don't know and often defer to the ladies on this board when it comes to questions about early childhood. Teaching high school and even earning a PHD doesn't mean you know all there is to know about kids in kinder.
I didn't pull the teacher card. I offered data from experts in the field, because I certainly do not "know all there is about kids in kinder". I didn't mention my personal experience until I was told "you are drawing yours based on isolated studies in a field you (quite obviously) don't work in"
If these are isolated studies, please, show me! Where are these contradictory studies? If you are basing it on data from your classroom, that's fine, I look forward to knowing how you systematically investigated the question of early kindergarten enrollment.
Actually the information YOU Posted proved me correct.
Your quote Studies where average performing 4yo were admitted early did not have the same benefits-- they were found to perform in the lower portions of their classes for the next several years
So, I had always heard you couldn't get a real true assessment of G&T until second grade or so -- outside of the Doogie Howser doing quadratic equations at three, I just assume most people who talk about having a "bored" four year old who needs to go to kindy early didn't truly have a full picture yet.
It is asinine to test kids for giftedness at 5. Most kids who are classified as gifted in early grades are there because they can read. By 3rd grade, most everyone can read, so you can actually see real giftedness (though most kids classified aren't really gifted - they are bright, and motivated, and compliant workers but true giftedness is rare. In 15 years of teaching, I have taught 2 truly gifted kids).
I don't think that I would put my kid in kindy at 4. My daughter is very bright, and she was reading at 4. But she's immature as hell; she started kindy at 5.5 and still struggled with the emotional maturity required. She still does.
"Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”
But, but the research says!!11!!! NC you are killing me with the fucking studies. Everyone knows you can find research to support any argument and spin the numbers to make a case. I see that you are in school so you are all about the books, but you have to look at real people and life experiences too. Anecdotes and all. I dont see mysel going to my kid's kindy teacher and saying "but want to see my research"? and handing them a stack of papers. Any decisions made would be a group effort by parents, educators and child psych.