Welcome to Gaia! ::


Shameless Browser

I understand a bit the motivation of both sides. Parents will want their children to get a good start in life - getting into an elite school can help, and being in a kindergarten attached to that school can be the starting point. Educators in general will try to give children time to be children, because if people start to hire tutors for three-year-olds, it can easily escalate to levels I've heard about in Asia (Japan, Korea). Going to club practice, school, other club practice, tutoring, then home to do homework? Not quite how I imagine childhood should be spent. I doubt parents would want that for their children either, but they will want to give their kids as many opportunities (and certainly no less than that neighbour's kid can have). And yet I don't approve people marking children who 'might have had tutoring'.
I think it does make sense to differentiate and start selecting brighter students - or to be more exact, students with higher motivation for studying - at some point before junior high. I would say before high school, to give people who are interested in academics and want to keep studying a possibility to learn things faster go deeper in the fields that they are interested in. But some kids might decide early on that they want to go to vocational schools, so there should be an option for that. It's admirable when people know what they want to do, but I guess it's a bit too early to expect it from a 4-year old who has no idea what options are even out there.

Demonic Kitten

Nyadriel
Roy Cura
My mom used to sit and read with me every night when I was a kid. I wonder if people would think that I’d been tutored. Before I hit kindergarten I knew the alphabet, colors, shapes, etc.


Same here. And my parents were among the working poor. Of course, with me, as soon as I got into school, I forgot a lot of things (severe heart conditions and lack of oxygen and resulting brain damage does that. We have a disadvantage normal kids do not have)

Just to note while on topic: some kids are born real smart regardless of parents station in life. My son's first words at two weeks was 'thank you' when he dropped his pacifier and I gave it back to him. Unborn can hear (been proven) everything you say, so it is possible to teach them something before they are born where language and word skills are concerned. My niece's daughter has been a real talker since age 1 year. Some kids can read words at an early age and really are smart enough to recognize color and shapes and objects even before age 2. So it really does not matter if rich or poor. Some kids are just naturally advantaged than others.

I wish someone taught me to read earlier than first grade. I tried figuring it out so I could read lots of books at an early age and no one would teach me. Too young in their eyes, I guess. I vecame one of top readets in the school when someone finally taught me, though. When a kid wants to learn,just teach the little kid.

Lord Elwrind's Queen

Dangerous Fairy

55,065 Points
  • Waffles! 25
  • Team Poison Master 250
  • Winged 100
Ronale
I understand a bit the motivation of both sides. Parents will want their children to get a good start in life - getting into an elite school can help, and being in a kindergarten attached to that school can be the starting point. Educators in general will try to give children time to be children, because if people start to hire tutors for three-year-olds, it can easily escalate to levels I've heard about in Asia (Japan, Korea). Going to club practice, school, other club practice, tutoring, then home to do homework? Not quite how I imagine childhood should be spent. I doubt parents would want that for their children either, but they will want to give their kids as many opportunities (and certainly no less than that neighbor's kid can have). And yet I don't approve people marking children who 'might have had tutoring'.
I think it does make sense to differentiate and start selecting brighter students - or to be more exact, students with higher motivation for studying - at some point before junior high. I would say before high school, to give people who are interested in academics and want to keep studying a possibility to learn things faster go deeper in the fields that they are interested in. But some kids might decide early on that they want to go to vocational schools, so there should be an option for that. It's admirable when people know what they want to do, but I guess it's a bit too early to expect it from a 4-year old who has no idea what options are even out there.


Looking at children who might be interested in Academics should be seen while they are still in grade school, actually. The mentality of seeing them during and after Middle School does not sit well for kids that are smarter. It pushes them back when they should be going ahead. Only reason to hold a kid back to their grade level is because of maturity level. But they need special attention just as any kid who is falling behind. I was kept back in 1st grade (meaning I was in 1st for two years) because my reading ability has suffered at some point.
My brother could not read for a long time. But not because he was 'lazy' as he had been accused of. But because he had been getting seizures and no one knew it. In Middle school, somebody thought he had Dyslexia. In High school, he got to have computer classes and - he learned to read! That is when he got properly diagnosed for the seizures. But his IQ is very high (and higher than my youngest sister. I have two). But you can see where there are many discrepancies in our education system and why so many kids fall through the cracks.

Lord Elwrind's Queen

Dangerous Fairy

55,065 Points
  • Waffles! 25
  • Team Poison Master 250
  • Winged 100
Kitty Nocturna
Nyadriel
Roy Cura
My mom used to sit and read with me every night when I was a kid. I wonder if people would think that I’d been tutored. Before I hit kindergarten I knew the alphabet, colors, shapes, etc.


Same here. And my parents were among the working poor. Of course, with me, as soon as I got into school, I forgot a lot of things (severe heart conditions and lack of oxygen and resulting brain damage does that. We have a disadvantage normal kids do not have)

Just to note while on topic: some kids are born real smart regardless of parents station in life. My son's first words at two weeks was 'thank you' when he dropped his pacifier and I gave it back to him. Unborn can hear (been proven) everything you say, so it is possible to teach them something before they are born where language and word skills are concerned. My niece's daughter has been a real talker since age 1 year. Some kids can read words at an early age and really are smart enough to recognize color and shapes and objects even before age 2. So it really does not matter if rich or poor. Some kids are just naturally advantaged than others.

I wish someone taught me to read earlier than first grade. I tried figuring it out so I could read lots of books at an early age and no one would teach me. Too young in their eyes, I guess. I became one of top readers in the school when someone finally taught me, though. When a kid wants to learn,just teach the little kid.


Never too late to learn. I have heard where people in their old age have learned to read even. But you are right. When a kid wants to learn, they should be encouraged. So many schools/teachers fail this. Kids are inherently curious at an early age which lasts throughout and that curiosity should always be taken advantage of. And kids learn though play. Not enough 'play' for kids which is another disadvantage for many.
Word association has also always been my problem too. I need some sort of visual more than I did as a kid.

Shameless Browser

Kitty Nocturna

I wish someone taught me to read earlier than first grade. I tried figuring it out so I could read lots of books at an early age and no one would teach me. Too young in their eyes, I guess. I became one of top readers in the school when someone finally taught me, though. When a kid wants to learn,just teach the little kid.

It's very true that children should be taught things when they show an interest in learning. I'm surprised a child could be considered too young to learn something. I guess it's better these days.
And when parents are working and don't have much time or patience to teach you.. that's where older children come in.
Well, in my case I did learn to read at three, but that was mostly because my older brother had learned the letters and needed to show off to somebody (and because it's somewhat easier to do in some languages). Considering that he had learned all that before the age of five from a single working mother, I'd say it does not take too much effort from the parents, or tutors for that.

Shameless Browser

Nyadriel

Looking at children who might be interested in Academics should be seen while they are still in grade school, actually. The mentality of seeing them during and after Middle School does not sit well for kids that are smarter. It pushes them back when they should be going ahead. Only reason to hold a kid back to their grade level is because of maturity level. But they need special attention just as any kid who is falling behind. I was kept back in 1st grade (meaning I was in 1st for two years) because my reading ability has suffered at some point.
My brother could not read for a long time. But not because he was 'lazy' as he had been accused of. But because he had been getting seizures and no one knew it. In Middle school, somebody thought he had Dyslexia. In High school, he got to have computer classes and - he learned to read! That is when he got properly diagnosed for the seizures. But his IQ is very high (and higher than my youngest sister. I have two). But you can see where there are many discrepancies in our education system and why so many kids fall through the cracks.


Hmm. I think that 4 years of grade school can be a good leveling ground that gives children an opportunity to learn as much as they wish regardless of how early someone started. So I think at best you could have interest groups or something then. In my case I had entrance exam for second grade, to get into the 1/3 who started to learn French. That was after one year of school (which I mostly spent learning social skills), so I am somewhat OK with that. It seems to me that in some cases children take a bit longer to mature and only start to show an active interest in academics when they encounter more interesting subjects in middle school, so I'm not sure if starting to differentiate after grade school is the right thing to do.
I very much agree that you'd need to pay special attention to children who seem to have problems, especially in the beginning. It might be something as simple as trying to figure out the right learning methods, or it might be some hidden serious problem that could cause serious harm later. I'm glad they found out what caused problems for your brother.
I'm not sure when children should be held back. Or when they can ship ahead. I know that having a gap in learning early on can later cause more harm (in regards to academic progress) than spending one more year creating a solid foundation. But I have no idea what that does to emotional or social progress and if it's worth it in the end. I think that as long as the child manages to attend school, things like that should be addressed as soon as possible, but that takes a lot of extra manpower and that the schools just don't have. The teachers are overworked as it is.

Lord Elwrind's Queen

Dangerous Fairy

55,065 Points
  • Waffles! 25
  • Team Poison Master 250
  • Winged 100
Ronale
Nyadriel

Looking at children who might be interested in Academics should be seen while they are still in grade school, actually. The mentality of seeing them during and after Middle School does not sit well for kids that are smarter. It pushes them back when they should be going ahead. Only reason to hold a kid back to their grade level is because of maturity level. But they need special attention just as any kid who is falling behind. I was kept back in 1st grade (meaning I was in 1st for two years) because my reading ability has suffered at some point.
My brother could not read for a long time. But not because he was 'lazy' as he had been accused of. But because he had been getting seizures and no one knew it. In Middle school, somebody thought he had Dyslexia. In High school, he got to have computer classes and - he learned to read! That is when he got properly diagnosed for the seizures. But his IQ is very high (and higher than my youngest sister. I have two). But you can see where there are many discrepancies in our education system and why so many kids fall through the cracks.


Hmm. I think that 4 years of grade school can be a good leveling ground that gives children an opportunity to learn as much as they wish regardless of how early someone started. So I think at best you could have interest groups or something then. In my case I had entrance exam for second grade, to get into the 1/3 who started to learn French. That was after one year of school (which I mostly spent learning social skills), so I am somewhat OK with that. It seems to me that in some cases children take a bit longer to mature and only start to show an active interest in academics when they encounter more interesting subjects in middle school, so I'm not sure if starting to differentiate after grade school is the right thing to do.
I very much agree that you'd need to pay special attention to children who seem to have problems, especially in the beginning. It might be something as simple as trying to figure out the right learning methods, or it might be some hidden serious problem that could cause serious harm later. I'm glad they found out what caused problems for your brother.
I'm not sure when children should be held back. Or when they can ship ahead. I know that having a gap in learning early on can later cause more harm (in regards to academic progress) than spending one more year creating a solid foundation. But I have no idea what that does to emotional or social progress and if it's worth it in the end. I think that as long as the child manages to attend school, things like that should be addressed as soon as possible, but that takes a lot of extra manpower and that the schools just don't have. The teachers are overworked as it is.


I dunno about the need for "extra manpower". Smaller than 30 students to a classroom would help. But it also takes a parent's help in decision making on keeping a child back a grade an extra year. This was not even considered for my brother. It was very frustrating for both Mom and Bro.
But it does also help when parents are involved more. Difficult or even impossible for many, depending on their situations. Latch-key kids are among those that really fall behind.

Shameless Browser

Nyadriel

I dunno about the need for "extra manpower". Smaller than 30 students to a classroom would help. But it also takes a parent's help in decision making on keeping a child back a grade an extra year. This was not even considered for my brother. It was very frustrating for both Mom and Bro.
But it does also help when parents are involved more. Difficult or even impossible for many, depending on their situations. Latch-key kids are among those that really fall behind.

Smaller than 30 students per classroom is the goal, I think usually the number of kids hovers near 30. But in some cases it helps to have extra help after classes, and that is plainly more than one teacher can do. Even if they had only 20 children per class, that could help saving enough energy to think of ways to help a child. But that would cost a lot more to pay the teachers and find the rooms, so I don't see that happening much. This, of course, does not excuse schools that make decisions without discussing things with the parents who do want to contribute, especially in case of something that has that much of impact on a specific child.
An acquaintance of mine is an elementary school teacher. From what she's told I understand that in most cases it is the problem that the parents don't want to do anything. Sure, there are a few that take an active interest in how or what their children are doing at school, but generally parents either complain about teachers (and conveniently avoid the fact that not all learning takes place at school) or ignore everything, not many think of how they could help their child. So the first six months with a new class would be teaching them how to learn, including things to do at home (such as remembering to bring the right book next time). It might be that mere physical presence of a parent can help - if you see your child more often you might ask them how was school, but I think there are other more important factors. I was what you'd call a latch-key child, but my mother was able to give all the help I needed in the evening. Maybe it even helped me to learn to rely on myself and figure out ways to do things, or how to ask questions. I think it might not be as much of a need for somebody helping you learn, but somebody helping you learn how to learn. And I'm afraid that some parents have no idea how to do that. That acquaintance actually mentioned getting the parents together at the start of the semester and teaching them a few ways they can help. Considering how much school has changed in 20 years and how much having a different perspective changes things, I find that a very good idea. Not that it will change the minds of those who simply don't care or don't care enough to do something themselves.

Insularis's Waifu

Witty Phantom

Why are we holding entrance exams for kindergarteners? They can barely spell their own names, why force them to compete?

Lord Elwrind's Queen

Dangerous Fairy

55,065 Points
  • Waffles! 25
  • Team Poison Master 250
  • Winged 100
Ronale
Nyadriel

I dunno about the need for "extra manpower". Smaller than 30 students to a classroom would help. But it also takes a parent's help in decision making on keeping a child back a grade an extra year. This was not even considered for my brother. It was very frustrating for both Mom and Bro.
But it does also help when parents are involved more. Difficult or even impossible for many, depending on their situations. Latch-key kids are among those that really fall behind.

Smaller than 30 students per classroom is the goal, I think usually the number of kids hovers near 30. But in some cases it helps to have extra help after classes, and that is plainly more than one teacher can do. Even if they had only 20 children per class, that could help saving enough energy to think of ways to help a child. But that would cost a lot more to pay the teachers and find the rooms, so I don't see that happening much. This, of course, does not excuse schools that make decisions without discussing things with the parents who do want to contribute, especially in case of something that has that much of impact on a specific child.
An acquaintance of mine is an elementary school teacher. From what she's told I understand that in most cases it is the problem that the parents don't want to do anything. Sure, there are a few that take an active interest in how or what their children are doing at school, but generally parents either complain about teachers (and conveniently avoid the fact that not all learning takes place at school) or ignore everything, not many think of how they could help their child. So the first six months with a new class would be teaching them how to learn, including things to do at home (such as remembering to bring the right book next time). It might be that mere physical presence of a parent can help - if you see your child more often you might ask them how was school, but I think there are other more important factors. I was what you'd call a latch-key child, but my mother was able to give all the help I needed in the evening. Maybe it even helped me to learn to rely on myself and figure out ways to do things, or how to ask questions. I think it might not be as much of a need for somebody helping you learn, but somebody helping you learn how to learn. And I'm afraid that some parents have no idea how to do that. That acquaintance actually mentioned getting the parents together at the start of the semester and teaching them a few ways they can help. Considering how much school has changed in 20 years and how much having a different perspective changes things, I find that a very good idea. Not that it will change the minds of those who simply don't care or don't care enough to do something themselves.


On teaching kids how to learn, a lot of teachers don't do that either. Or don't know how.
Another problem with schools, as I had mentioned in a different conversation in another thread, is the problem of putting a teacher who is trained to do PE into a classroom to teach English where they are not trained for (because a lot of teachers are specifically trained for a specific area. As in not trained as a generalized teacher, but as a teacher in an "area of expertise" ). This totally does not help the school, students or the community at large. It would also help if the school budgets were not constantly cut (in favor of putting it I-dunno-where-but-I-can-guess)
Would also help if teachers themselves graduated from collage with a better than a C grade. Too many get hired with scores like that. How can the school system in our country expect better from our kids when the teachers are not able to do better? Something is wrong somewhere. Collages are failing us too.

Lord Elwrind's Queen

Dangerous Fairy

55,065 Points
  • Waffles! 25
  • Team Poison Master 250
  • Winged 100
Loyal Assassin Jafar
Why are we holding entrance exams for kindergarteners? They can barely spell their own names, why force them to compete?


We are talking about the Ivy League here. Competition amoung parents. It's the Ivy Leaguers that get to be the 'elite' in this country and they want their babies to have the best. Room for all those kids is a bit limited and they want the smarties as opposed to the 'average intelligence' kids. But the parents compete with each other because the 'elite' kids of the 'elite' parents are 'trophy children'.

Shameless Browser

Nyadriel

On teaching kids how to learn, a lot of teachers don't do that either. Or don't know how.
Another problem with schools, as I had mentioned in a different conversation in another thread, is the problem of putting a teacher who is trained to do PE into a classroom to teach English where they are not trained for (because a lot of teachers are specifically trained for a specific area. As in not trained as a generalized teacher, but as a teacher in an "area of expertise" ). This totally does not help the school, students or the community at large. It would also help if the school budgets were not constantly cut (in favor of putting it I-dunno-where-but-I-can-guess)
Would also help if teachers themselves graduated from collage with a better than a C grade. Too many get hired with scores like that. How can the school system in our country expect better from our kids when the teachers are not able to do better? Something is wrong somewhere. Collages are failing us too.

Oh yes, the budget cuts are certainly helping the education, which in turn will naturally have an absolutely positive impact on the economy. Sure.
I do know that some teachers are going outside their expertise, but I hadn't heard of an example that extreme. Over here it's mostly maths teachers trying to give computer lessons or so. Hiring students who have not yet gotten their masters degree (and therefore actually shouldn't teach) is more common and in my opinion actually better than putting a teacher of another discipline in front of the class. At least these students usually have both high motivation and almost all the necessary knowledge. I'm not sure about the grades, because I think it depends largely on what parts of the curriculum were the cause. If an elementary school teacher had problems writing their thesis, that's still OK. If they almost failed psychological courses, it's more worrying, but that again depends on whether the content of the course was really geared towards the needs of future teachers. But then there are some teachers who have refresher training who seem to just do it for the paper/degree, e.g. to give computer classes. What results can we expect from the children taught by people who cheated their way through the refresher course?
I think refresher courses are a good thing, especially in cases where there are not enough teachers of some subject, like English in your example. And certainly for psychology or learning methods. But there are limits. And what is most needed is motivation for the teachers. Hm, although I guess that the teachers at elite schools might be just a little more motivated. Higher pay, smaller classes, smarter children.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum