4 ms·
If Kindergarten were just play based schooling then I’d agree with you. But there is an academic component, for example learning to read, and students abilities
by surfmike 1y ago
If Kindergarten were just play based schooling then I’d agree with you. But there is an academic component, for example learning to read, and students abilities can be radically different.
- teiferer 1y agoYou don't need kindergarten to teach reading. Mine didn't and I did fine. (Obtained a Ph.D. degree later in life.)
- forgotoldacc 1y agoMy parents taught me diddly squat, so I was glad my kindergarten teacher taught me how to read. That's half the reason kids are in kindergarten.
- teiferer 11mo agoMaybe it's because I'm old and things are different now, but back in the day, first year of primary school was when everybody learned to read. Some kids already knew some (incl. me), and that didn't necessarily make life easier for them since some parts of class they were then bored. Well, you learn to deal with it. It's not like such situations never occur in adult life. I often find myself in work meetings where colleague A explains something to a group of 10 people to get everybody on the same page, and there are often one or two folks who already know this stuff and are obviously uncomfortable for those 10 min of intro. Clearly, they never learned how to deal with such a situation.
- JohnBooty 11mo agosince some parts of class they were then bored. Well, you learn to deal with it It's a crucial life skill. I'm highly doubtful that forcing young kids to be bored (by making them progress/learn slowly, when they could be learning more) is the best way to do it.
- teiferer 11mo agoOh I'm not disagreeing. Forcing boredom is not the way. But preventing it at all costs may not be either.
- JohnBooty 11mo agoWhat was your kindergarten like? Was there no reading because it was academically poor or was it kind of an "alternative" learning environment ala Montessori? (I don't know Montessori's specific ways of teaching reading)
- teiferer 11mo agoThere wasn't much directed learning. We played all day. Indoors building stuff, outdoors in the woods. All that academic material with reading and writing and maths and all that, that's what primary school was for. Which started at age 6/7. I'd say let kids be kids and have them explore the world through curiosity, not through a planned curiculum from age 3.
- em-bee 11mo agomontessori is very directed but the key difference is that each kid is learning on their own at their pace. which means the kids learning is only driven by their curiosity. montessori materials are also designed to make learning interesting. kids can choose what they want to play with and after introduction to a new lesson are allowed to explore the material in their own way, which makes it very playful. teachers observe the kids and suggest new lessons to each kid when they feel a kid is ready.
- em-bee 11mo agoif it didn't teach reading it wasn't montessori. montessori teaches reading, writing and math far beyond what an average kindergarten does.
- surfmike 11mo agoPerhaps, but then surely reading should be part of the curriculum at least by by grade 1 or 2 then? But if reading is part of the curriculum (which it generally is for K and certainly for the years after) then it’s just the reality that there will be big differences in ability and trying to have everyone go at the same pace doesn’t serve either early or late readers.
- tokai 1y agoThere really shouldn't be any academic component. It doesn't help any outcomes.
- em-bee 11mo agomontessori is almost pure academic, and it makes a massive difference. but the key is not what they learn/teach, but how.