I think you may misunderstand what a gifted kindergartener is. Like, some kids come in and they essentially taught themselves to read. That doesn't mean they have helicopter parents who think they're extra special -- it means they have distinct needs that aren't well served in the normal classroom, which is boring for them.

I don't think four year olds demonstrating the ability to read several levels above their grade level is 1.) rare and 2.) a talent you can realistically tease out from over-parenting at that age.

Given the extreme levels of segregation in certain parts of the country (NYC for example has fewer than 5 percent of Black and Latino kindergartners in G&T programs, but higher enrollment for Black and Latino students in third grade) school systems like that one should seriously consider pivoting to prioritizing equality over G&T funding.

> NYC for example has fewer than 5 percent of Black and Latino kindergartners in G&T programs, but higher enrollment for Black and Latino students in third grade

Why does it happen?

But how does pulling a GT program help with equality? Putting bored kids in a classroom with kids who are far behind them developmentally drags everyone down. Don't the GT kids deserve to learn, too?

> I don't think four year olds demonstrating the ability to read several levels above their grade level is 1.) rare and 2.) a talent you can realistically tease out from over-parenting at that age.

Sure, but shouldn't those kids be in an environment where they can practice reading instead of being painstakingly re-taught the alphabet? As you said, it's not all rare.

I was one of those kids, and I was extremely disruptive in class because I couldn't bear to be made to sit and trace the letter "A" for 45 minutes when I was already reading novels at home. When they stuck me in a different class, things got much better for me, and it's not like doing that cost the school board any extra money.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with gifted children, but some kids thrive in and want a challenging environment. Not every kid is "normal" that wants to do "normal children things". Thats kind of the point.

If Kindergarten were just play based schooling then I’d agree with you. But there is an academic component, for example learning to read, and students abilities can be radically different.

You don't need kindergarten to teach reading. Mine didn't and I did fine. (Obtained a Ph.D. degree later in life.)

What was your kindergarten like?

Was there no reading because it was academically poor or was it kind of an "alternative" learning environment ala Montessori?

(I don't know Montessori's specific ways of teaching reading)

There wasn't much directed learning. We played all day. Indoors building stuff, outdoors in the woods. All that academic material with reading and writing and maths and all that, that's what primary school was for. Which started at age 6/7.

I'd say let kids be kids and have them explore the world through curiosity, not through a planned curiculum from age 3.

montessori is very directed but the key difference is that each kid is learning on their own at their pace. which means the kids learning is only driven by their curiosity. montessori materials are also designed to make learning interesting. kids can choose what they want to play with and after introduction to a new lesson are allowed to explore the material in their own way, which makes it very playful. teachers observe the kids and suggest new lessons to each kid when they feel a kid is ready.

if it didn't teach reading it wasn't montessori.

montessori teaches reading, writing and math far beyond what an average kindergarten does.

My parents taught me diddly squat, so I was glad my kindergarten teacher taught me how to read. That's half the reason kids are in kindergarten.

Maybe it's because I'm old and things are different now, but back in the day, first year of primary school was when everybody learned to read. Some kids already knew some (incl. me), and that didn't necessarily make life easier for them since some parts of class they were then bored. Well, you learn to deal with it.

It's not like such situations never occur in adult life. I often find myself in work meetings where colleague A explains something to a group of 10 people to get everybody on the same page, and there are often one or two folks who already know this stuff and are obviously uncomfortable for those 10 min of intro. Clearly, they never learned how to deal with such a situation.

    since some parts of class they were then bored. 
    Well, you learn to deal with it

It's a crucial life skill.

I'm highly doubtful that forcing young kids to be bored (by making them progress/learn slowly, when they could be learning more) is the best way to do it.

Oh I'm not disagreeing. Forcing boredom is not the way. But preventing it at all costs may not be either.

Perhaps, but then surely reading should be part of the curriculum at least by by grade 1 or 2 then?

But if reading is part of the curriculum (which it generally is for K and certainly for the years after) then it’s just the reality that there will be big differences in ability and trying to have everyone go at the same pace doesn’t serve either early or late readers.

There really shouldn't be any academic component. It doesn't help any outcomes.

montessori is almost pure academic, and it makes a massive difference. but the key is not what they learn/teach, but how.

Fuck you. What about having our lives ruined by being imprisoned in a fucking kindergarten, full of violent screaming children? Have you ever tried to read a fucking book while surrounded by screaming children who keep hitting you? How about building a toothpick model or writing a computer program? Now imagine that those children are bigger than you, and you have the emotional maturity of a 5-year-old.

Forcing children who aren't normal to be normal is child abuse, and your comment is an attempt to perpetuate the kind of abuse that I was subjected to.

Kids shouldn't have to be surrounded by "violent screaming children" period. I fail to see what giftedness has to do at all with whether or not you deserve to not have this as a learning environment.

Some kids have more difficulty with it than others.

Which is why some countries like the US have encoded into law IEP and 504 plans for children with (among other things) sensory needs, regardless of giftedness status.

How many years were you in kindergarten?

Some days it feels like I never escaped.

It's code for not having certain kids in the classroom.

Until the 90s, they'd base G&T admission based on IQ. Now it's based on whether your family can afford a quality Pre-K. They thought my little brother was a savant as he could read on the first day of kindergarten -- my little sister taught him to read. (He is a very smart dude!)

I was in a well-regarded gifted program in the 80s in a NYC public school. The main distinction was that I was essentially trained to interpret short narratives with time incentives in a standardized test setting. It worked out for me through high school, as that skill allows me to coast through tests and blow off most of the work. Reality bit in college, where you were expected to actually read the book. :)

Because getting rid of the first on ramp is how you get rid of the entire system, year by year rolling it up until the whole thing is gone.

It’s equally crazy to me that we are spending time and money to eliminate opportunities for our kids. My school district in SFBA has done the same thing to their gifted program.

If this is really about equality then we would be strengthening these programs because gifted kids from wealthy families will continue to have access to accelerated education. It’s the poor and middle class who are losing out.

I preferred to read instead of doing "normal children things" in kindergarten. I acted out so much my teacher forced me to see a psychologist. When I was placed in an appropriately challenging environment, I did much better.