How about a LOT later

[dalebert]

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/school-starting-age-the-evidence

Earlier this month the "Too Much, Too Soon" campaign made headlines with a letter calling for a change to the start age for formal learning in schools. Here, one of the signatories, Cambridge researcher David Whitebread, explains why children may need more time to develop before their formal education begins in earnest.

[Tom Sawyer]

I had some difficulties advancing in my reading skills up till 4th grade. (I did ok but I think I was pretty much memorizing words and not able to phonically decode them.)

From 4th to 6th grade I went from being a marginal reader to a 12th grade level reader... Wouldn't have been a help to try and have me reading at 4 years old because I obviously wasn't ready. In addition the rate of progress I showed in two short years proves that it doesn't take 12 years to get there.

Children's learning is too important to be given to the academics. Academics are too narrowly focused and feel that because they had to suffer through to climb the hierarchy that's the best path to take.

Parents have been encouraged down the sooner is better path to the point that Johnny know his ABCs before (and instead of) being able to function in the physical world. Much of the "learning" from flash cards etc is really just a parlor trick that a few years later is not even in there abilities. I had a cousin that knew (been drilled in) the names of a zillion different dinosaurs at 5... later he was a very poor student and didn't even remember the names.

[dalebert]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJD4A6p18UM

[Russell Kanning]

They told my parents I would never read in K or 1st grade.

[Free libertarian]

I had some difficulties advancing in my reading skills up till 4th grade. (I did ok but I think I was pretty much memorizing words and not able to phonically decode them.)

From 4th to 6th grade I went from being a marginal reader to a 12th grade level reader... Wouldn't have been a help to try and have me reading at 4 years old because I obviously wasn't ready. In addition the rate of progress I showed in two short years proves that it doesn't take 12 years to get there.

Children's learning is too important to be given to the academics. Academics are too narrowly focused and feel that because they had to suffer through to climb the hierarchy that's the best path to take.

Parents have been encouraged down the sooner is better path to the point that Johnny know his ABCs before (and instead of) being able to function in the physical world. Much of the "learning" from flash cards etc is really just a parlor trick that a few years later is not even in there abilities. I had a cousin that knew (been drilled in) the names of a zillion different dinosaurs at 5... later he was a very poor student and didn't even remember the names.

Well said, I agree that the academics seem a little "possessive" of the children.

Although, how could a kid know the names of dinosaurs?  Except for Graffy, I've never even been introduced to any dinosaurs.

[WithoutAPaddle]

...how could a kid know the names of dinosaurs?  Except for Graffy, I've never even been introduced to any dinosaurs.

[Jim Johnson]

..and this lady.

[Tom Sawyer]

Was she know as Sin-Clair because she would do certain things the other girls wouldn't do?

[Jim Johnson]

We'll have to see if that's revealed in Lloyd's Memoirs.