Tuesday, April 12, 2011
If "research suggests", it must be true
NAC announced it will be offering full day kindergarten, for a $2000 a fee for those who can pay. Superintendent Chris Himsel said "research and evidence for those who participate in early childhood learning programs are much, much more likely to graduate from high school". Note he didn't say those who participate in full day kindergarten vs. half day kindergarten. There is no conclusive evidence that full day kindengarten is more beneficial than half day once kids are past the third grade. Studies at Indiana University and the University of Southern California "suggest" the benefit is gone after grade three. In other words Mr. Himsel is blowing smoke. Just like FWCS saying eliminating full day kindergarten to save money (and keep Elmhurst open) is off the table. It's a popular baby sitting service and now that we have it it's not going away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Research my a**. Kindergarten for a couple hours a day, does nothing more than acclimate kids to behave in group settings. (future classrooms)
It has no bearing on their academic actions later on in life and most certainly doesn't influence whether or not they'll be more apt to succeed at college.
My mother(who taught all her life) is rolling over in her grave at what our education "system" has become.
And $2000 a year for a full time babysitter is pretty cheap.
Forgive me - can you clarify: are you against full-day K, all K, a fee (instead of using tax revenue), or just admins blowing smoke?
I support (and I'm willing to pay for) measures that can be shown by data to help kids succeed. Data on full day vs. half day kindergarten in "far from conclusive" according to IU. FWCS has had full day kindergarten in Title I schools for more than a decade but has never published any statistics on it's effect. So until the question is cleared up charging a fee is reasonable approach.
It probably depends on the child. Kindergarten, half or full day, may help some but not others. I didn't go to kindergarten. Some countries think kids shouldn't be in formal schools before the age of seven.
As far as the smoke goes, that's the main reason I've kept doing this blog.
As a substitute teacher, I believe the following about full-day kindergarten:
1.) It promotes violence. Students at the age of 5 are forced to sit for a long period of the day, filling worksheet after work, or etc. They are not able to run around and socialize like a true child. The intensity of the class, promotes a disrespect for the school enviroment, including teachers.
2.) It is unhealthy, and a determiate to society. Kids, at a young age, should play, be creative, etc. Instead in urban schools, students are forced to a 25 minute recess in the middle of the day, which does not allow children to be children. They can't utilize their brains to think of making up a game.
I understand that in many homes, both parents need to work, and need an extended daycare solution. However, I believe that it should be a joint program between a YMCA and a school, and the parents can pick up the YMCA portion. Kids need to be kids and learn to socialize and be immaginative. Case in point, I taught in an IPS school under a nonprofit ten years or so ago. IPS didn't fund ESL programs for kindergarten, yet the school system was worried about kids being behind, so they partnered with a nonprofit provider to hold enrichment learning for the second half of the day. The students, I was entrusted care with were able to play at least 30 minutes in the afternoon, had tons of fun center activities and lots of learning. They were well ahead of their American peers at the end of the year, including those who were in the full-day learning program for low test scores. Teachers were blown away my students' abilitiy to create, think and imagine things, as well as to read, count, add and subtract. Why? My students had TONS of play time, and didn't have kill and drill.
I spent a year volunteering in a (half day) kindergarten class. I've also subbed in full day kindergarten. My impression is that most five year olds are not ready for that kind of regimen, so you have to let them "be kids" (including naps) most of the day. The teacher I worked with rationalized it by saying they're better off in kindergarten all day than sitting in front of the TV. Maybe, but as a taxpayer I don't find that a convincing argument.
I have been in several K classes, where the kids are not even allowed to put their head on their tables.
California-based RAND Corporation’s December 2006 report, “School Readiness, Full Day Kindergarten, and Student Achievement,” examined data from a nationally representative sample of almost 7,900 students and found "that full-day kindergarten programs may actually be detrimental to mathematics performance and nonacademic readiness skills."
The study showed “children who had attended a full-day program at kindergarten showed poorer mathematics performance in fifth grade than did children who had attended a part-day kindergarten program.” - Rand Corp. 2008
http://www.inpolicy.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=535:white-paper-full-day-kindergarten&catid=14:petitionswhite-papers&Itemid=33
Anonymouse says that Full-K promotes violence.
Well, we are currently fighting three wars, and I expect the number will be much higher by the time those kids turn eighteen. Better to toughen them up now, rather than waiting for basic training.
Maybe they can incorporate full-K into the Patriot Act.
Well, the governor just directed that part of a $150MM increase in school funding be used to provide full day kindergarten for everyone who wants it. 75% of our districts aleady have it. At one time there were proposals to make it mandatory.
It help kids entering the first grade but the effect wears off by the end of grade 3. My theory is that whatever is gained has to be heavily reinforced at home or maybe with extra help in school for the next three years to really work.
Oh, and I've been in kindergartn classes where each kid had a foam matress for their afternoon nap. But that was a few years ago.
I agree with most of you...kids at the kindergarten age need plenty of activity; I know that at that age I could not sit in a chair for long periods of time.
The governor also set aside money for rewarding exceptional teachers. Here is a link to a recent study in the Nashville schools of teacher merit pay. Conclusion: it doesn't work.
Maybe that is because teaching is not a contest to see who can produce best. It is collaborative and the best teachers are anxious to share.
http://www.danpink.com/archives/2011/03/does-giving-teachers-bonuses-improve-student-performance
I think that didn't work because no carrot of money ahead of time can make a bad teacher do better. I believe statistics in IMPROVBEMENT of test scores will verify what principals already know about the relative competence of their teachers. But now they will have data to confirm their judgement. Giving bonuses as a reward in a contest is not how the incentives should be structured. Over time, the combination of principals' evaluations and test score data will indentify the best teachers and their salaries should be adjusted accordingly.
S-
The Nashville study did use student improvement on test scores, called "value added" by a teacher, also similar to the Indiana Growth Model being touted by Bennett, head of IDE. I agree with you, most principals (and teachers) know who the best teachers are, and they could be anointed master teachers, or whatever, and compensated. (They might also be identified with, say, three years of data.) There are also high need areas in high schools, mostly in the sciences now, why not attract those in the field to teaching with additional pay? We also have to do away with "rewarding" the best teachers by giving them the highest performing students (I am talking non-elementary here). No surprise, but many teachers who dropped out of the Nashville study had higher numbers of ELL and special ed. students. Those are the students who need our best teachers!
The reason we do not have teachers in hard to teach subjects in hard to teach schools is simple. What reasonable person would want to do this to themselves. Our attacks on teachers (I am not talking about principles or superintendents) can easily drain teachers spirit.
If a young student asked me if I thought it was a good career move to become a teacher, I would say No if you want a middle class lifestyle (I've seen the salaries - teachers are in the 'poor class' unless their spouse makes good money.
This question is just another attack on the hard work our teachers do. If you look at what these kids are required to do in Kindergarten - it is more than was asked of us in 1st grade.
You're right on one count. I've taught high school algebra south of Coliseum and there's no way I would want to do that for a living. Anyone who can do that well should make twice what they're making now. But to pay them what they're worth we need a measurement to justifiy it and up to now teachers have resisted any kind of measurement. So I hope FWCS can come up with a salary administration system under the new law that rewards teachers who can succeed under difficult circumstances and attracts the top academic prospects into the teaching professionand the system.
Post a Comment