princesspupule wrote:Reading doesn't define learning or school, apmom. There is so much more to learning than one aspect! And, quite frankly,
True, reading isn't the only aspect of education and learning; but reading does usually come before math, social studies, and science in the early grades. I mention reading because it sets a foundation for learning; if one can read well(this includes comprehension) then s/he can learn just about anything. Math is also an important foundation, but that's not covered any better than reading in Kindergarten; they learn their numbers(which most 5yrs olds should already know) and how to sort little objects.
princesspupule wrote:I am skeptical that a teacher would say such a thing to your friend... are you sure that she didn't misunderstand??? I ask this only because that she would actually follow such idiocy paints her smack into the stoopid korner, kwim?
No, this wasn't misunderstood. Do some more research, you will find that it's a fairly common theme in today's public school system. Yes, I love my friend like my own sister and I adore her son, but for being a really smart young woman she can be a bit dense; sometimes she does belong in the "stoopid korner"
. Mind you the idea the children shouldn't be allowed to learn to read before their classmates is rampant in Oklahoma schools, but it's also happening in schools in other states.
princesspupule wrote:The "no child left behind" policy may prove to be a double edged sword in some few cases, but generally teachers are a sensible lot who love learning themselves, or else they wouldn't have chosen that profession, and I really cannot imagine a whole school district full of senselessness as you have described.
The "no child left behind" policy actually makes no difference. Children will still continue to be taught to the test, special ed childen will still not be considered in school-wide testing, and children will still be left woefully unprepared for college.
princesspupule wrote:But, if there were such a district, I would blur the line of "things above grade level." After all, ought we not all have taken out kindergarteners out to see Perseids the other night? Then a discussion about shooting stars, a visit to astronomers with telescopes, maybe making meteors out of dry ice and dirt? Grade level is an arbitrary assignment, kwim? There is so much to try and investigate- it really should precede kindergarten, and continue to the very end of our days...
I agree that sciences should be included in kindergarten as well as the higher grades. I think your experiment would be so cool. Unfortunately, we homeschoolers are often held to the school district's "grade levels". Our children can read above grade level, have an amazing understanding of biology, but be a bit more challenged by math and we're not doing our job. Fortunately, Oklahoma is a wonderful state for home educating, but that can't be said for every state. It also seems that the worse a school performs the more difficult it is to tailor a curriclum to an individuals strengths, challenges, interests, and learning styles. In our home, we don't consider "grade levels" as anything more than a guideline; certainly not something to adhere to in any strict sense.
princesspupule wrote:You asked at the end of your post if what you wrote was not the saddest thing, and apmom, I must agree that what you wrote is indeed sad, but not for the reasons you present. There is a note of bitterness and resignation to your posts on this topic, and to me, that is the saddest thing of all.
For me it's the saddest thing for children who have no option but a school system that forces them to follow a curriculum that has been designed to try to make all children learn the same things at the same pace. I am resigned to the fact that we won't use the public school system, but I'm not resigned to the idea that it cannot be changed. It's our duty to work hard to change the system. Children NEED to have something better.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace