• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Aged Based School Sorting is Irrational

AlaskaBushPilot

Illuminator
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
4,341
The law here, like almost all states says a five year old can only be in kindergarten and a six year old in first grade. It was illegal to register our kids for any formal academic program before those ages. Private, public, parochial schools - everyone told us the law prohibited enrolling earlier.

This guarantees age sorting for the duration of a child's education no matter how advanced they are. You can flunk and be held back - but it is nearly an impossible feat here. Even if you shoot your teachers they put you in the juvenile jail and by law you have to be in school.

So at the beginning we impose age conformity. You also are prohibited from taking the GED high school exam until age 18 or 19 depending on the state, so the two together make it impossible for almost anyone to do anything but comply with age sorting. The State actively prohibits high school diplomas to people who want them - just bizarre! Sorry, you are 17.

Age sorting makes no sense on the face of it. You hold back advanced kids and you have unreasonable expectations for developmentally delayed kids.

For all this crap about embracing "diversity", to require everyone to be the same age is nonsense. On the face of it again - how ridiculous it is! You can't have a 15 year old in the same class as a 13 or 17 year old? Our school is mixed ages to begin with! Kindergarten, first grade, and second grade are all in the same room with the same teacher. Ages 5 to 8 in one room.

The same is true in all four rooms. It is a K to 9th school, so every room has mixed grades and ages. Common all over the state.

So they can be in the same room, eat together, playground together, take the bus together, all day long these mixed ages are together. They are at different academic levels in the same room. But a six year old cannot study second grade material. A five year old cannot study first grade material.

Not only is it contemptuous of kids to say they can't get along with differently aged kids, but it is precisely the kind of socialization you would want! You want to train kids to get along with people of different ages. You should accept people as individuals, even if they are smart. So it is a mystery to me why this age sorting is so pervasive.

Here is an article similar to our circumstance from over 20 years ago:

http://www.home-school.com/Articles/i-was-an-accelerated-child.php

Never did my parents sit down and decide that we were going to be finished with school by a certain age. The acceleration was a natural but unexpected byproduct of the way that our school was organized. While we studied only three hours a day, those three hours were very concentrated. Mother was in the school room every moment, watching everything we did. We were not allowed to play, sing, laugh, or talk in the school room. When we finished one subject, she immediately assigned us the next one. We were able to accomplish a remarkable amount of work in that three-hour time period.

Exactly! 2-3 hours is all we need for a full day of school including MMA and Music. We go year round.

We just inquired about the correspondence program here because allegedly you can go at your own pace and it is formal certification of grade level achievement. We've done whatever we felt like doing so far.

You can buy "education in a box" like Calvert, and the school district will accept it. If you finish the first grade in one month, no problem. Then you can take second grade if you want, and third - as many as you can finish in a year. It takes about $30,000 to finish through high school if you don't use Calvin's online help. Quite a lot more if you do.

So the school district would allow him to finish Calvert's first through third grade curriculum for his "Grade 1" certification. Then in grade 2 he can finish Calvert's 4th through 6th grade curricula. Etc. So, were he to pace this woman, he will finish Calvert's High School degree by age 12.

And the state will consider him to have finished 6th grade. This is true all over the country. Look at this 11 year old with three college degrees:

http://college.usatoday.com/2015/05/22/11-year-old-graduates-college-with-3-degrees/

He was taking college classes by age 7. Colleges don't care how old you are. It is becoming increasingly common for kids like these to graduate from college when their state will not certify them for having graduated from high school.

What homeschoolers are doing is taking the SAT whenever they are ready, as young as 12. So colleges are taking them without high school degrees. Girls and boys who have not even gone through puberty are enrolled in colleges, no problem. Without the SAT, even. Depends on the school.

They just can't be enrolled in third grade. This just seems so preposterous that arguing for it is near hysterics. College okay, third grade no. Because people can handle ten or twenty year differences in ages but one year age difference - that would be impossible.

Most parents can't spend $30K or more on homeschooling and wrap up an adult's time being the teacher too. So there is a large group of students who could be significantly ahead in grade level if the schools would stop forcing age conformity and prohibiting kids from enrolling when they are ready.

Once you've allowed it, that will remove the social stigma. I am amazed how many adults instantly recoil at the thought of having different aged kids in the same grade. It's just because they don't know any different. A lot of kids are going to want to graduate high school early to escape the stifling confines of school, the violence and toxic culture too. But we tell them no.

Seems to me our poor performance on tests by international standards would be improved quite a lot by removing laws making it illegal to excel academically.
 
As a kid who almost missed the boat and might have had to wait another year, but was almost always the youngest kid in class, and the brother of a sister who skipped a couple of grades, I would tend to agree for the most part.

There is, of course, a social argument for keeping ages closer, because younger kids often take a beating from the older ones, but I'm inclined to think that much of this is backwards, a way in which the administration allows the bullies to run the schools. I think it's a decision best left to individuals.
 
I'm in the odd position of doubting many of the facts and implied figures provided, while generally being in agreement that being flexible on providing schooling to match ability.

I don't think it's a generally controversial idea, but as I bet cookie cutter approaches save money and fit into a standardized form better, I can see how it got that way and why it's difficult to change.
 
There's also a complicating factor of selective abilities for most kids. Not all kids learn all subjects at the same speed, so they require different amounts of learning to reach the required skill and knowledge levels. If we think back on our own school days, there were always kids who were quite accomplished at one or two subjects but were the dummies in others. I know I was one!

For example, one "brainiac" child (not me!) may actually be a total wizz at mathematics and possibly science, but a bit of a middle-of-the-fielder when it comes to the humanities such as English and geography. So does this kid get accelerated learning ahead of his age due to his good math skills? Because he would have to up his game for the corresponding humanities classes or it could become a big problem for him and lead to assorted subject failures. That is, promoting this brainiac could actually cause failure, not success. Not a good outcome.

I suggest if this accelerated non-age-based approach is to be considered, it needs to be streamed by broad subject matter. Acceleration is only considered on a per-stream basis, not as an all-or-nothing strategy for the child.

In our example, our brainiac could go to the higher math classes, but continue in more age-appropriate level humanities classes. The sense of challenge and achievement remains appropriate to the levels he experiences for each subject stream.
 
Kids are evaluated throughout the school year to determine placement. The start gate isn't a rigid rule that continues through the students education. We have plenty of stories in our culture about Gifted students being moved ahead.

The reality however is that schools are built on a system of educating groups of students together with limited resources for the teachers. So you might find one teacher in a room of 20 kids.

Sometimes parents forget to factor in that the reality of being a smart kid who is well behaved and can do well with one on one attention is not necessarily the same skill as being educated in a group of diverse students with different learning needs.

So the easiest way to set that up is to use Piaget's stages of Cognitive Development as a framework for grouping practices.

Kids are not grouped by ability they are usual grouped by age not for Cognitive Ability but for SOCIAL interactions with their peers.

If a student demonstrates maturity, good social skills and is advanced in their learning, they will certainly be moved ahead regardless of their age.

But far too many parents forget to consider the "social awareness" and "being educated in a group" that is part of the issue with placement.

For example, if you have a little genius rock star 1rst grade student who has a High IQ and reads on a 5th grade level how exactly would you place them socially?

A first grade student is about 6 years old, if you place them in with 10 year olds they may suffer from a sense of isolation and being left out which negatively impacts their sense of identity as a learner. In other words it could do more harm than good.

The better solution might be to have the student placed in a 3rd grade class with 8 year olds and then to receive additional services for reading skills.

If parents factored in "social skills" and their sense of identity among their peers then I think they would see the situation a little differently. In my personal experience Homeschooling Parents often bristle at this idea because they mistake it to mean "having friends." That's not what it's about. It's about learning to work in a GROUP. I have several home school parent friends whose kids are amazing people. They sit and work one on one with their kids and so their kids are used to being educated as an individual not as part of a group. So when they are expected to go into classes where they aren't getting that one on one support they have difficulty with the METHOD of instruction even though they do well on the subject matter. It's not about making friends.

That's why I always wonder what exactly parents think they are gaining by brain training their kids to be advanced before they get into school? Lots of kids could pass the SAT in 3rd grade if they were taught to test. Taking a test well is not the same thing as learning. It's not supposed to be about a speeding through as fast as you can. It's supposed to be about immersion, metacognitive awareness, developing social skills, hearing different perspectives on the same idea. etc etc.

(Btw I'm not lauding the school system as great, the school systems have a LOT of problems, I just don't think this is one of them.)

There are many different options for supporting your child's learning needs. But if you are using a school system that is designed around the average student's skill set for an age, I don't understand why you would expect the school to shift everything around for the sake of your specific child's needs?

That's the public school system. It works for the majority as best as it can. But if you feel like you have a special child on your hands, step in and manage that as a parent and get them the services they need.

BTW Gifted students fall under the category of Special Education. And FAPE avails free and appropriate public education for these students. You might want to have your child evaluated by the state, then apply for admission to private schools for Gifted students. If it turns out that the school cannot accommodate your child the state will pay for it.

Wrightslaw is the go to source. Check out your STATE to see if these services are available to you.

http://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/how-can-i-fight-for-a-gifted-child/

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505480.pdf


Here is information specific to Alaska

https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-state/alaska

ETA Rats, it seems like Alaska isn't on board with this. That sucks.

Does the legislation mandate that gifted students be served? No
Does the state require parent/guardian involvement in gifted and talented identification and service decisions? Yes
Does the state require specific criteria/methods to identify gifted students? No
Does the state provide guidance or guidelines for the identification process? No
Is there legislation that mandates specialized training in gifted education for teachers of gifted students? No
Is the age or time at which students are identified for gifted programming mandated in your state? No


http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Resources/Policy/By_State/Default.aspx
 
Last edited:
Here is a page that explains it well. Consider this, if your child is gifted and more mature than his age peers, then it doesn't necessarily mean that by moving him up to higher levels that the older students will somehow be more mature and will get along with them better. In reality it might be the opposite. Social Maturity does improve with age but it could backfire on a gifted child placed in a classroom with a bunch of older students who are socially immature. They could bully the child mercilessly.

The key is not to just bump the child up with older students but to make sure the student is being exposed to peers that will understand them. So separate education in this case will most likely be the smartest move.

I sure hope you've had your child evaluated for SPECIAL EDUCATION services and not just intellectually evaluated. This is often overlooked by parents of Gifted students because they equivocate Special Education with Students with Disabilities.

If you think of a bell curve where the majority of students fall in the middle, and the Students with Disabilities fall to the left and Gifted students fall to the Right, then they are both outside the parameters of the norm. So they require Special Education services with IEPs (Individualized Education Plans)

Hope this helps.
Social Skills

Similar to all children, gifted children are no different when it comes to navigating peer relationships. However, gifted children sometimes have moments when they are unavoidably out of step with their age mates. They are often more sensitive and emotionally aware than other children, can easily be hurt by unkind comments and/or rejection by others, and may be perceived as bossy, contrary, intense, serious, self-absorbed, negative, sarcastic, or bragging. They’re often unaware they are committing peer faux pas.

It’s important to identify opportunities for gifted children to spend time with like-minded peers on a regular basis so they have safe opportunities to hone their social skills. They need to find peers who share the same interests, style, level of knowledge, and sensibilities. If it's not possible within the school setting, parents should look beyond the school walls for "interest peers." Differences in age melt can away when like-minded people share a passion.


http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources-parents/social-emotional-issues/social-skills

http://www.davidsongifted.org/Search-Database/entry/A10065
 
Assuming Alaska's policies have been reported correctly, I don't think they're representative of the general trend in the nation.
 
I see public education as providing for the needs of society more than the needs of children. If I want kids to meet a certain baseline of knowledge and socialization in preparation for entering the workforce, it does little good to advance them ahead of their age - they won't be legally allowed to work anyhow.

On the other hand, if early education is going to be a stepping stone to college and a professional career - that's taken care of by admitting young people into college based on testing, which is not age-specific.

In any case, the idea that a public education exists for the benefit of those being educated is, in my view, incorrect. It provides the minimum necessary, just as public housing, or the food stamp program does. If you want your kid to get a custom education, or a fancy house, or fine meals, then you have to pay for those luxuries. I am unwilling to fund the exceptional.

Find a benefit to society for age-mixing and you'll have a reasonable case. Otherwise, not.
 
The law here, like almost all states says a five year old can only be in kindergarten and a six year old in first grade. It was illegal to register our kids for any formal academic program before those ages. Private, public, parochial schools - everyone told us the law prohibited enrolling earlier.

You can send them to preschool right? Why would you want to start them before age 5 I wonder? To get a head start on the other kids? They probably aren't mature enough to start before age 5 anyway. After they start, it is possible to skip grades though. And there's no law that says you can't start their education at home before that. Or supplement what they do in kindergarten or 1st grade with stuff that is more their level if it is too easy for them.
 
I see public education as providing for the needs of society more than the needs of children. If I want kids to meet a certain baseline of knowledge and socialization in preparation for entering the workforce, it does little good to advance them ahead of their age - they won't be legally allowed to work anyhow.

On the other hand, if early education is going to be a stepping stone to college and a professional career - that's taken care of by admitting young people into college based on testing, which is not age-specific.

In any case, the idea that a public education exists for the benefit of those being educated is, in my view, incorrect. It provides the minimum necessary, just as public housing, or the food stamp program does. If you want your kid to get a custom education, or a fancy house, or fine meals, then you have to pay for those luxuries. I am unwilling to fund the exceptional.

Find a benefit to society for age-mixing and you'll have a reasonable case. Otherwise, not.


This is so spot on. I cannot tell you the slap downs I've done on parents whining because their child "didn't learn to write cursive in school." I see this pop up on my facebook feed regularly. "It's a shame that kids today don't know how to read and write in cursive."

I always ask them why THEY don't teach their kids cursive if they want their kids to learn cursive and it's not taught in school? Since when did school become the only place a kid can get an education? Teach them yourself.

Anything you feel is lacking in your child's education is up to you to complete.
 
I'm curious why these threads are often started and then abandoned with no reply once help and information is offered.
 
sorting based on age seems to be sticky rather than based on their talents because decisions about human potential are never fool proof or reliable. Thus we often keep some standards to be followed ensuring justic efor all. Everytime we put a label on a student it sticks both good and bad. Though these days it is prevalent in sorting based on talent
 
I'm in the odd position of doubting many of the facts and implied figures provided, while generally being in agreement that being flexible on providing schooling to match ability.

I don't think it's a generally controversial idea, but as I bet cookie cutter approaches save money and fit into a standardized form better, I can see how it got that way and why it's difficult to change.

More teachers, better pay, fewer students in every class ( maximum 15) and the ability to return uncooperative students to the parents for required home schooling would pretty much cover this and ABP's points. But, the likelihood of it happening is vanishingly close to zero. I can give a lovely list of reasons but I do not think I need to since we have a reasonable number of bright people here. And anyone knowing how the system works and roughly what it requires to work should not be surprised.

Note, under these circumstances it should mostly be easier for the students to be moved through at a faster pace (though unlikely at ABP's apparent rate desire unless each teacher had at least one and really two assistants who could work closely with students having more difficulty with the material.
 
Back
Top Bottom