When should a gifted child start kindergarten?

Jokingly, my friends and I will say that all our children are gifted.  In fact, in all the conversations I've had with parents about when to start a child in kindergarten, absolutely no one has said that their child isn't smart enough to start - it's inevitably about social or athletic concerns. It's sort of assumed that the intellectual development of the child won't really be impacted either way.

The President of the Montana Association of Gifted and Talented Education's post on Teacher Magazine's EdWeek suggests that for gifted children, perhaps we should be considering EARLY start - or, as in the case of fall children/boys kids, ON TIME.  She cites 50 years of research (summarized and available at the Acceleration Institute which is focused on Gifted and Talented education) on the benefits of acceleration (skipping grades).  Certainly something to consider for the parents of bright children considering holding their children back for non-academic reasons.

Whatever you believe about skipping grades, its virtually undisputed that schools should challenge every student and encourage students to go beyond their comfort zone of abilities. How to do this without creating pressurized schools is a challenge. Personally, I like the project based learning models that I see at our school and others as a way for each child to learn according to their learning style and push beyond their comfort zone. 

An example - the fourth grade at my school started their year learning the scientific method and immediately applying to an experiment testing different brands of paper towels. They 

A quick review of the scientific method:

1. Observe something
2. Form a hypothesis that states the explanation of the observation
3. Predict what would happen if the hypothesis is true or false.
4. Create an experiment to test the predictions.
5. Analyze the results and determine if the hypothesis is on track.

So the fourth grade observed that different paper towel brands are different and ran experiments on absorbency and strength over the course of a week.  Then the kicker...when the experiment was done and the data collected, each child had a week to create an advertisement for the brand they chose - a poster ("print" in my world), jingle or video. Their ads were to be "big, bold and beautiful", make and defend scientific claims and engage the audience. The criteria for excellence was written and distributed to students (and their parents).  The result was every child strove for public excellence and expressed themselves and their abilities - whether or not they are gifted in science.  Or writing. Or art.  And when they presented their ads, the classroom erupted with support and feedback - from the students and staff. 

There are possibilities to challenge every child every day. What is unacceptable is letting students disengage from learning because they are either bored, lost or something else. It seems to me that finding a school that will engage and challenge your child appropriately is crucial - whether they are truly gifted or not.

Redshirting kindergarten and gaming the system

Sunday's New York Times, a forum on TheSchoolBoards.com and pre-K parent conversations currently seem to revolve around the same question - are you starting or holding back your summer/fall child. The gist of the conversation is what is the decision parents can make that give their child an edge. How do you "game the system" is what I've read and heard. 

The real question is what are parents trying to do by trying to "game the system" at all. Some children are smarter, some are more athletic, some are sensitive, some are creative. There's no finish line and there's no guarantee of lifelong success and happiness. I value education tremendously as the gateway to life's possibilities - but my experience has been that the admissions criteria of some of our areas "top schools" for kindergarten are ill-informed and not supported by research. Here's an example - many top schools use aptitude testing on 4 year olds to determine academic ability and readiness. The problem - the IQ test, for example, has up to a 30 point average score change for the same child between ages 4 and 8 (see NurtureShock for the detailed research).So a high scoring 4 year old has the distinct possibility of being an average 8 year old. All you are testing at age 4 is the rate of maturity - and it basically balances out (early, average and late bloomers will be what they will be) by 3rd grade. And the behavioral tests to see if the child can "endure" kindergarten have also been proven to be misguided and non-predictive of later academic success - NurtureShock again.

The holding back phenomenon started with the self-esteem movement and the thought that children who are younger feel worse about themselves. That's been thoroughly debunked. Self-esteem doesn't have to do with age in kindergarten. The children who do better in kindergarten because they are older KNOW they are older than the other children. There's no self-esteem benefit from "beating" someone you should beat. Self-esteem comes from working hard towards a goal and accomplishing it - not coasting to it.  

The New York Times article quotes parents who are very concerned about the maturity span in each grade. As Dr. Jessica wrote on Friday, there needs to be a date when children MUST start school so that we can eliminate 18 month age spans. But even then, some children will physically mature before others and as parents, we have to figure out how to navigate that with our kids.  I suspect parents always did have to do that...

At the end of the day, parents need to stop worrying about getting into the "top" or most prestigious schools and look a bit longer term. Are the gradutes succeeding in middle school and high school? Are the parents committed to a well-rounded education that includes creative efforts, collaboration and critical thinking? Setting up our children on a "Race to Nowhere" (good movie - we're screening it at our school in early November) is the most likely path to burn them out.

We started our children true to grade at a progressive private school that doesn't believe in the testing I mentioned above for the reasons I mentioned above. Our graduates are independent thinkers, strong collaborators and campus leaders - and they genuinely love learning. That's about all I expect of the school - the rest of their success is up to them.  

What do you expect of your elementary school?

AD/HD and younger students

I'm really mad. USA Today published a story that the youngest kids in a grade are frequently misdiagnosed with AD/HD and it is all over the news.  What's making me angry is hearing respected MDs speak of holding young for grade children back as a means of lowering the number of misdiagnosed children.  REALLY? 

As a psychologist specializing in learning challenges, I have some questions:

• Are educators and pediatricians making sure that children are put in age appropriate situations at school? 
• If evaluations are necessary, are they conducted by licensed professionals who base diagnoses on symptom profiles with age appropriate behaviors in mind?  

Teachers do not have the knowledge, expertise, or right to diagnose children with behavior disorders. They are invaluable contributors to the evaluation process. Children spend up to 6-hours of waking time per day at school. Every evaluation for issues occurring at school include at least one observation of the child at school as well as interviews with the teachers and all other professionals that interact with the child at school.  

They know our kids well and their observations should be respected.

BUT, symptoms for AD/HD must be present in multiple settings for the diagnosis to even be considered. So teacher concerns are not enough.

• Do parents, teachers and pediatricians expect and accept that the younger children will behave differently than the older children when classrooms serve children with a likely age range of 15-18 months?
• Are they aware that children with learning disabilities, anxiety, depression, and AD/HD often demonstrate the same symptoms and until those symptoms are identified, picked-apart, and studied systematically, it is not possible to make an accurate diagnosis? 

Kindergarten is not only about academics; teaching social skills is an important aspect of the curriculum. Consider if the children that are old for Kindergarten  are creating this mis-diagnosis problem – their behaviors are not necessarily grade appropriate if they are overly mature. 

There will always be a youngest child in every class.  The problem is the age range in classes has become huge and expectations are inconsistent and often inappropriate.  Rather than simply stating a date by which a child is allowed to start Kindergarten, states need to add a date by which children MUST start Kindergarten (particularly difficult given that many states do not require that children attend Kindergarten at all) so that the age range is restricted. 

Look at the research – the young for grade children do fine.  In fact, students from all places in the age range do fine. In later years, old for grade students disproportionately act out. They are bigger, stronger, have access to the car keys, and can write their own notes to leave high school whenever they want (and the school can’t share that information with the parents because the student is a legal adult). 

Finally, most of these articles also fail to note that “red shirting” Kindergarteners is only a phenomena in affluent communities.  Are well off children really that much less ready for Kindergarten than their poorer peers and if so, why?

How important is kindergarten?

In California, kindergarten is optional - so what's the value of kindergarten? A team of Harvard, Stanford and Northwestern economists found out.

The New York Times  reported on a Harvard economics study that evaluated the impact of kindergarten on lifetime earning capacity of the students – in an experiment called Project Star that began in the 1980s and studied 12,000 students from  mixed socioeconomic backgrounds so that they could factor out the impact of socioeconomic advantage. The net present value of the impact of a good kindergarten teacher was calculated as $320,000 in additional lifetime earning (see the slides from the economists' presentation). Interestingly, this increased earning potential wasn’t accompanied by measurable differences in standardized tests. Turns out that the test benefits go away, but the earning benefits do not.

Many high-achieving parents, kindergarten seems like a waste of time before children start to do the real work of school. Other parents don’t feel concerned with large class sizes in kindergarten or only 2 hours of kindergarten per day (budget cut impacts) because hey – it’s only kindergarten. So what did my children learn from a good kindergarten teacher?

In kindergarten, my children learned how to be part of a team when they work together on projects. They learned how to wait their turn to be called on and how to support each other when they struggle.  They learned patience, although they still call out. They learned appropriate behavior in school – manners and kindness – and the consequences of inappropriate behavior. They learned to persevere.  They learned to create and to appreciate other’s creations.

Our kindergarten is full day and only has 18 children in a class with a senior and associate teacher. Of course they learned numbers, dates, days of the week, letters.  They also learned the Aleph Bet (Hebrew alphabet) and Jewish traditions. They learned about their environment and caring for the earth as well as caring for people who need help.

I think a great kindergarten teacher establishes expectations of school – that learning is fun, communal and rewarding. And not only do these teachers impact lifetime earning potential, but as I told a parent who wanted to skip kindergarten – it teaches the very skills that enable children to be independent, responsible citizens when they graduate college. Besides which, it’s fun – who wouldn’t want to go back to kindergarten?

The fallacy of parenting insurance

We all look for insurance - health insurance, life insurance and to some extent "parenting insurance".  The challenge with parenting insurance is that we're really trying to affect the outcome of someone else's life and they have more than a little to say about the matter.

Last week, I moderated a lively teleconference on kindergarten readiness. It's available as a podcast and well worth the listen.  But the listeners were mostly shocked at the message - that kindergarten readiness is an artificial construct created by upper middle class parents seeking to ensure their children have an edge.  Parenting insurance.  The research favors starting children on time - and even a little bit on the young side.  

Tutoring companies and elite elementary schools prey upon our need for parenting insurance.  We legitimately want to give our children all the opportunities and cultivation they need to succeed in life.  Measuring success by academic achievement and collegiate acceptances. Which seems to be as much about proving that we are amazing as parents as it is about them knowing how to be successful.

Articles in Nurture Shock (my new favorite book on parenting) aggregate the research and show that intelligence testing of young children is incredibly unreliable - up to 30 points of IQ swing is regularly noted between ages 5 and 14.  30 points in IQ measurement is HUGE.  The research also shows that children routinely told they are smart often have a harder time in high school and college - because they think if they don't "get it" instinctively, it's an issue of intellect and not of diligence and hard work.  Einstein said - 95% of brilliance is just showing up.

My feeling is that there is no parenting insurance.  There's no schools that ensure our children will get into colleges we can brag about.  There are schools that teach critical thinking and personal responsibility - but those schools will only have an impact if we as parents value and teach the same thing - which means letting our children make decisions, make mistakes and deal with the consequences of those mistakes.  I think it must get very scary when your child is a teenager or young adult and takes many more risks than my young kids...so my philosophy is to instill the values and foundation now that will, hopefully, guide them through the risks that inevitably will come their way.  

What's your parenting insurance?  Did it work?