Skip to content

Kindergarten Readiness

September 5, 2010

I prefer working with smaller children.  The challenges of working with students who sometimes cry, have bathroom accidents and need a lot of individual attention are outweighed by the benefits working with children who are generally happy to see me every day and haven’t learned to dislike school or one another.  I know that I would have zero tolerance for the sassy mean-girl stuff seen in upper grades. The budding (sometimes inappropriate) sexuality of the tweens and the young teens would not be comfortable for me either, despite the interesting curricular possibilities with older students that appeal to me in theory.  Although I enjoy the younger kids, I also see a huge range of skills among the incoming students.  While some demonstrate a certain level of background knowledge and readiness for the school setting, many more of them don’t.  I have seen children who, oddly, demonstrate no sense of curiosity, who appear to have had little or no experience with parents who read to them, or even converse with them.  It’s an alarming reality of my job.

So, what’s the appropriate response in working with such students?  Should we design our practice  from a purely skills-based perspective?  Should we remedy the gaps in early at-home language and literacy experience with an immediate dose of phonics and letter recognition/sight word tasks?  I refuse to do so, but plenty of teachers will do just that.   They do it because they are told that they will be evaluated on how well their students do in post-testing.  They do it because they are afraid their jobs will be on the line.  And, they do it because they don’t know any better. Children, from all walks of life, learn best while engaged in play or in pursuits that they find meaningful.

This recent Chicago Tribune story is worth a look but its title, “Kindergarten: It’s the new first grade”  is somewhat inaccurate. In fact, the trend toward pushing first grade curriculum with kindergartners in US schools is not new. Experts in the early education field have been questioning its merits for a number of  years.  Dr. Edward Zigler (of Headstart fame), for example, has written articles and spoken publicly regarding the dubious merits of “pushing down” curriculum of upper grades into increasingly younger classes.  Of course we want students who are literate but we also want them to be well-rounded citizens with social and academic problem-solving skills. More than forty years after the HighScope Perry Preschool Longevity study was launched we can still see statistically significant differences in the levels of life-success among those individuals who were selected for inclusion in the HighScope program and their peers who weren’t.

Our primary concern with our  smallest charges should be in developing students who love to learn, students who can be self-directed and socially successful. We already know that many students don’t get the important  “lap time”  at home, that crucial learning time spent with a caring  adult who reads to and engages with the small child.  We need to find a way to make up for that lost time but it isn’t through treating children as passive receptacles for abstract bits of information. It is our moral obligation to provide child-responsive learning environments in which we can assist children in becoming students who embrace learning, love reading and who can express themselves effectively.

5 Comments leave one →
  1. September 5, 2010 8:37 pm

    As a high school teacher, I have a lot of respect for those who teach younger kids. It’s so very important, pivotal even, and I honestly don’t think I’d be any good at it.

    My daughter received a barrage of standardized testing in kindergarten in the form of something called the Terra Nova. The teacher told me, as a class, the kids’ scores dropped each successive day of four days, as the children’s interest declined more and more. I expect things will get worse before they get better, unfortunately.

  2. September 5, 2010 10:01 pm

    This is so true. I also wonder why we even bother with pushing more of this older curriculum and testing onto these young ones– the scores they generate are even more unreliable than the ones we get for older kids, and making kids learn things for which they’re not ready is a recipe for defiance and negative attitudes toward schooling. So counterproductive…

  3. September 5, 2010 11:16 pm

    If you view THE WAR ON KIDS you get some sense of what’s going on. To say that it’s a plot is too simplistic. But to ignore that there is a concerted effort that is anti-democratic, pro-conformity, and all of it geared to serve the needs of corporations (which have long ceased to be simply American in ownership, philosophy, or practice) is to put one’s head in the sand. Somewhere between utter paranoia and Pollyannaism is the realization that the American way of schooling and child-rearing is less and less in the interests of kids. It wasn’t beautiful when I grew up in the 50s and 60s, but it’s downright sinister now.


  1. Playing in Kindergarten? « Failing Schools
  2. Musings on Geoffrey Canada’s Denver Visit « Failing Schools

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: