[Kay1]

SMH article

WDYT? I have thought that the learning outcomes for Kindy are woefully unambitious. My eldest (who is very bright) was counting to 30 easily at age 2. My 2nd who I would say is more 'average' can count to 30 now and has a year before starting school.

These low expectations in maths seem to flow through as well. DS1 is in Yr2 now and maths is still very basic. I don't think its a case of lots of kids being gifted, I just think the curriculum should expect more. In my area most school starters have typically had 2 years of high quality preschool education. Of course there will be kids who are not meeting these benchmarks and they should have lots of resources thrown at them to help them catch up. I think this is preferable to having all the other kids being made to wait a year or more to learn anything new so these kids can catch up.

I also believe (admittedly from anecdotal evidence) that kids often underperform significantly in the Best Start test....due to nerves, shyness etc.

Perhaps its just because I am the mother of a very frustrated young "mathamatishin".

This post has been edited by Kay1: 17/02/2013, 08:02 AM

[tomson]

I agree with you - I was stunned at the level of maths presented to my first child going into year one ( NSW). It was stuff that his 4 year old sister was capable of doing. I think the expectations should be higher.

However, I would be happy with something co ordinated in place to cater for the kids that need more. This seems to be sorely lacking at the moment.

[tadpole-bean]

I don't know why there is an urge to educate educate educate, great that they are into their numbers but they should just concentrate on letting them be kids and let them play. Let the kids lead the way if they want to explore more numbers (as if you can stop them - incidentally my LO started kinder and the article practically describes his numeracy "skill") rather then try and formulate a newer system to accommodate their talent. Don't build an unnecessary wall between the kinders.

[liveworkplay]

There is a big difference between being able to count to 30 (which all three of my dd's have been able to do well before fyos) and understanding relationships between these numbers. I think the curriculum isn't perfect, but I do think a thorough understanding if the basic concepts are vital for the continued enthusiasm for learning maths, and anything else for that matter. My kids could also write simple sentences and knew all their alphabet and how to write all their letters. Doesn't mean they didn't get anything out of the literacy program. Knowing "facts" is just the starting point. Foundations are so so important. If you haven't got these completely 100% then when the work does get hard and complicated, you will have no hope of keeping up.

This post has been edited by liveworkplay: 17/02/2013, 08:43 AM

[Julie3Girls]

I don't really have a problem with the base level of the curriculum being reasonable low, particularly in the first years of primary school.
I think it is immensely important for children to get the base level understanding rock solid and if that means a slow pace, that's fine with me. I have a friend who is a teacher, in upper primary, and she has commented that some kids just seem to be missing the very basics, still "counting on" for very simply additions, rather than simply having that knowledge there.
I guess I also see the curriculum as something of a base level. This is what they must know. Bt there should be nothing stopping the teacher from teaching beyond that. The kids also do assessments at the start of each year .. Usually a spelling test, comprehension test and a maths test. If the whole class in general is ahead, that should be obvious and you teach to the class level.

That said, I do think there needs to be something in place for the more advanced kids. Not even necessarily pushing them upwards, but extending sidewards. Maybe moving into more practical applications of maths, problem solving etc.

I've actually been fairly happy with how our school has dealt with this sort of thing. Access to online programs where the child sets the pace for the work. .. Our school uses studyladder, as well as a variety of other maths programs. Allows the kids to work ahead if it suits them, and gives the teachers a good idea of which kids are advanced AND motivated/interested enough to push themselves. My dd3 in kinder last year was doing studyladder in addition to the very basic homework, easily doing grade 1 work.
In yr5 and 6, the three 5/6 classes get split for maths, into graded classes. They cover the same sort of work, but the top class is largest, middle class a bit smaller, the bottom class is significantly smaller, in order to try and give the kids struggling more individual teaching time to help them catch up. Means the general pace can be a bit faster. And the advanced class can spend some time doing some variations, or spending time on some mental maths etc, while the lower class has the teacher attention to cover the basic curriculum very solidly before all 3 classes move on to the next thing.

As for best start ... I think it is a helpful tool for some kids, and probably gives the teacher an overall view of the class in general. BUT, it can miss the mark completely for some kids. So on an individual basis, I'd prefer it if the teachers make their own judgement as they get to know the kids. Dd3 did great in best start .. She is confident, chatty, very much at home at the school that she had been visiting regularly since she was 3 months old.
Dd2 on the other hand, had speech issues, which resulted in her being very softly spoken, and very shy, and she barely said a work to her teacher in the best start. The teacher caught me a week or so later, and told me that I shouldn't even bother picking up the results, because they were just so wrong. The very average results were nowhere near her actual abilities.

This post has been edited by Julie3Girls: 17/02/2013, 09:33 AM

[Kay1]

I don't know why there is an urge to educate educate educate, great that they are into their numbers but they should just concentrate on letting them be kids and let them play. Let the kids lead the way if they want to explore more numbers (as if you can stop them - incidentally my LO started kinder and the article practically describes his numeracy "skill") rather then try and formulate a newer system to accommodate their talent. Don't build an unnecessary wall between the kinders.

Do you mean that kids are being pushed to learn this stuff before school? I know our preschool program doesn't explicitly teach any numeracy or literacy skills but my kids have still picked it up - probably due to too much tv and computer.

There is a big difference between being able to count to 30 (which all three of my dd's have been able to do well before fyos) and understanding relationships between these numbers. I think the curriculum isn't perfect, but I do think a thorough understanding if the basic concepts are vital for the continued enthusiasm for learning maths, and anything else for that matter.

Yes that's a good point. I am keenly aware that as I am not an educator it is likely that I am not seeing the small important details that he is learning, which is why to date I have not pushed too hard for extension. It is a balance I guess between ensuring that all content is thoroughly understood and going over learned material too many times. At the moment I feel that the latter is happening with my son as he's lost all his passion for learning and finds everything 'boring' at school and yet at home demands maths questions instead of bedtime stories. This is something I will be addressing with his school this year.

I am pleased to hear about this new 'gifted and talented' program and even more pleased that it is going to be in action in our school this year. I just hope that it actually delivers. It will be interesting to see what happens when DS2 starts school next year as I think he will be closer to the 'norm'.

[Kay1]

That said, I do think there needs to be something in place for the more advanced kids. Not even necessarily pushing them upwards, but extending sidewards. Maybe moving into more practical applications of maths, problem solving etc.

Yes exactly. I am certainly not in favour of acceleration, I think that just pushes the problem forward to the future. I have been promised this kind of sideways extension before but to date it does not really seem to be happening.

[baddmammajamma]

From what I've discerned from various threads on EB, some (many??) schools don't seem to be that well suited to extend sideways. Julie3Girls, it's good to hear that your school is finding ways to do so.

I would love to see more opportunities for kids who learn at a faster pace to be challenged with that type of extension. I'm not sure why some schools haven't figured out a better way to challenge advanced kids beyond simply giving them longer worksheets -- but I suspect a lot of it comes down to time & resources, as it does take both to cater to anyone who is outside the norm. It's sad that the net result is that there are kids who are losing their interest in and passion for learning.

And then there's the issue of how to deal with kids who are gifted or twice exceptional -- who process and absorb things in a different way from most of their peers...

[BadCat]

I don't think it's a case of more gifted kids but rather a case of a less challenging curriculum. But then I've always thought the bar was set pretty low.

[TurtleTamer]

I thought some of the stuff my son did last year was pretty good for Kindergarten. I remember him counting by 5s and 2s and 3D shapes, I know there was a lot more but I don't remember specifically, there was some basic fractions and division I think. They expected them minimally counting up and backwards from 30 before they even started kindergarten. My current kindergartener came home doing 99+5 type maths last week and we're in what? Week 3? I don't know if that was a class thing or during testing (private school, they did their own testing this past week) but I don't think that's too bad.