FOR THE
WASHINGTON POST
Rob
Saxton is Oregon’s deputy superintendent of public instruction. Jada Rupley is
the early learning system director within the state Department of Education.
Together they wrote an op-ed
in The Oregonian that was published online with this headline:
Kindergarten test results a
‘sobering snapshot’
What
could possibly be sobering about test results from kindergarteners? What kind
of tests are they giving to kindergarteners anyway?
It
turns out that every public school kindergartener in Oregon was given a
kindergarten readiness test last September to see how many numbers, letters and
sounds they knew. The Oregonian reported that kids on average entered
kindergarten knowing 19 capital and lower-case letters and seven letter sounds
of at least 100 possible correct answers.
Kindergarten
readiness tests are nothing new. What is is the ever-increasing focus on
turning kindergarten, and now preschool, into academic environments with the
aim of ensuring that children can read by the time they are in first
grade. In fact, kindergarten is the new first grade when it comes to
academics.
Saxton
and Rupley wrote in their piece that the results of the testing of the
kindergarteners in Oregon “provide a sobering snapshot of the skills our
children possess as they enter kindergarten.”
A
working paper called “Is Kindergarten
the New First Grade? The Changing Nature of Kindergarten in the Age of
Accountability,” by Daphna Bassok and Anna Rorem of the University
of Virginia’s EdPolicyWorks, a center on education policy and competitiveness,
notes that kindergarten has been transformed over the last decade, with
academic skill-being taking center stage.
For
some kids, learning to read in kindergarten is just fine. For many others, it
isn’t. They just aren’t ready. In years gone by, kids were given time to develop
and learn to read in the early grades without being seen as failures. Even kids
who took time learning how to read were able to excel.
Today
kids aren’t given time and space to learn at their own speed.
Writer
Alfie Kohn wrote in this post
about concerns he has about the new calls for universal early childhood
education. Why? Because when people talk about “high-quality programs,” they
often mean academic programs, meaning the academic focus is being pushed down
to younger and younger kids.
Very
few people are talking about the kind of education that would be offered —
other than declaring it should be “high quality.” And that phrase is often
interpreted to mean “high intensity”: an accelerated version of skills-based
teaching that most early-childhood experts regard as terrible. Poor children,
as usual, tend to get the worst of this.
The
top-down, test-driven regimen of Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” and Obama’s
“Race to the Top” initiatives in K-12 education is now in the process of being
nationalized with those Common Core standards championed by the Times — an
enterprise largely funded, and relentlessly promoted, by corporate groups. That
same version of school reform, driven by an emphasis on global competitiveness
and a determination to teach future workers as much as possible as soon as
possible, would now be expanded to children who are barely out of diapers.
That
doesn’t leave much time for play. But
even to the extent we want to promote meaningful learning in young children,
the methods are likely to be counterproductive, featuring an emphasis on the
direct instruction of skills and rote rehearsal of facts. This is the legacy of
behaviorism: Children are treated as passive receptacles of knowledge, with few
opportunities to investigate topics and pose questions that they find
intriguing. In place of discovery and exploration, tots are trained to sit
still and listen, to memorize lists of letters, numbers, and colors. Their
success or failure is relentlessly monitored and quantified, and they’re
“reinforced” with stickers or praise for producing right answers and being
compliant.
This dreary version of
early-childhood education isn’t just disrespectful of children; decades of
research show it simply doesn’t work well — and may even be damaging.
Bassok,
one of the authors of the research paper mentioned above, noted that while
there are fun and engaging ways to teach young kids academic material, she
worries that so much emphasis will be put on learning to read that other
things, like play and social interactions, will be lost.
It’s
already been happening for years, and it appears to be getting worse. The end
result will be kids who hate school even earlier than they do now.
Kids
like to play. Kids learn from play. Why it doesn’t make sense to just let them
play is beyond me.
Here’s a position paper on the testing of young children by Defending the Early Years, a non – profit project of the Survival Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) tax – exempt educational organization based in Watertown, Massachusetts. (Find more information at deyproject.org or write to geralynbywater@gmail.com.)
Here’s a position paper on the testing of young children by Defending the Early Years, a non – profit project of the Survival Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) tax – exempt educational organization based in Watertown, Massachusetts. (Find more information at deyproject.org or write to geralynbywater@gmail.com.)
What
is the problem?
Today,
the majority of classrooms for preschool, kindergarten and primary age children
are required to address content standards that prescribe what children
are expected to learn. These standards are intended to insure that worthwhile
subject matter is taught. Performance standards have been developed to
find out if children have learned the prescribed content.
While
standards are helpful for identifying valuable content, they can also have a
negative impact on children and programs. Some of the problems with standards
are that they are not always based on knowledge of how children grow and learn,
and often do not take into account children’s needs, capacities, cultures, and
unique characteristics. Standards can lead to teaching of skills in ways that
are not effective or meaningful, to the narrowing of the curriculum, and to
less time for play and hands-on learning experiences that are important
foundations for later school success.
It is
useful to find out if children have learned the prescribed content, but the way
this is most often done is through testing – which also can have a negative
impact on children and programs. One of the major problems with the tests is
that they are often not based on knowledge of child development and are
therefore not suited to the developmental abilities of young children. Another
problem is that tests can only measure a narrow range of knowledge and skills,
so they often miss important objectives of early childhood education like
creativity, problem-solving, and social and emotional development. Teachers who
want children to do well on tests may eliminate worthwhile learning
experiences, introduce skills too early, or narrow the curriculum in order to
“teach to the test”.
Research
shows that children learn best when they have hands-on learning experiences,
engage in structured play, experience facts within meaningful contexts, invent
their own problems to explore and solve, and share their own solutions. The
current emphasis on standards and testing has led many schools to over-focus on
assessment at the expense of meeting children’s developmental needs and
teaching meaningful content. Play and activity-based learning have been
disappearing from many early childhood classrooms, and – along with them –
children’s natural motivation and love of learning.
What
could be done to address this problem?
Program
practices:
1.
Promote programs that are based on current research on how young children learn
best.
2.
Promote meaningful, hands-on learning experiences in classrooms for young
children.
3.
Work to ensure that teachers provide well-thought out educational experiences
that demonstrate knowledge and respect for each child.
4.
Work to ensure that children have literacy experiences that include
storytelling, quality children’s literature, and acting out stories rather than
activities that isolate and drill discrete skills.
5.
Help teachers skillfully build curriculum from what children can do and
understand instead of direct teaching skills that are disconnected from
children’s understanding.
6.
Encourage schools to respect the language and culture of children and their
families, to encourage families to take ownership and to make sure that their
history and experiences are included and valued.
7.
Encourage schools to design schedules that provide ample time for families and
school personnel to meet and work together.
8.
Work to ensure that teachers who have specialized training in early childhood
education are placed in classrooms for young children.
Assessment
practices:
1.
Encourage policies that protect children from undue pressure and stress and
from judgments that will have a negative impact on their lives in the present
and in the future.
2.
Promote the use of assessments that are based on observations of children,
their development and learning.
3.
Work to ensure that classroom assessments are used for the purpose of improving
instruction.
4.
Support efforts to eliminate testing of young children that is not intended to
improve classroom practice.
5.
Eliminate labeling and ranking of children based on standardized tests.
What
family members can do at home
1. Provide
young children with space and time to play at home and in the neighborhood.
2. Read
good quality children’s books and limit screen time.
3. Resist
reinforcing the school’s agenda – drilling for skills – and replace
it with opportunities for meaningful learning
No comments:
Post a Comment