Another part of the article that concerns me is this quote by Keplinger (Palo Alto School District - Parent Education)
Kids need to have other things in place before reading. At age 4 years old, they need to work on emotional growth, social and fine motor skills. They need to have other things in place before reading.
While I agree with the importance of those things,
I have to disagree here as well. ...
So, again, I have to disagree with the "experts."
They do not see giftedness as connected to other things - they focus on one skill - and not on how this skill lifts up others. Their model of child development is flawed.
I agree with the critics here, especially that the model of child development as a one-size-fits-all concept is flawed.
I don't really understand why a child can't learn to read until s/he's reached a certain level of "emotional growth." Questions:
1. How is emotional growth defined?
2. Who defines the appropriate level of "emotional growth" required for reading?
3. How is it measured?
4. Do we hold people back until they reach the required level?
Poking holes in vague statements like the one above is trivial. Yet too many educators stick to them and don't want to listen to criticism.
I had a terrible time persuading DS9's 2nd grade teacher that using him to teach other kids was bad for him. She saw the situation only from her perspective: "I was taught to use my best students." The idea was that the best students tutor struggling students while the teacher works with other kids.
She totally failed to see the practice from DS9's perspective: he wasn't allowed to learn new things or do his 5th grade math problems because he had to tutor someone. I tried explaining it to her this way, but she kept going back to what she'd been taught. I eventually wrote a cease-and-desist letter to the principal.
Val
