mj 7 Posted November 6, 2004 Fortunately, colleges and universities are not LOWERING or CHANGING their standards to accommodate these stupid and unrealistic parents. If anything, colleges seem to be raising their standards. Unfortunately, today's high school graduate is probably less prepared for the rigours of college life than we were 20 years ago. I get tired of hearing about how U.S. schools are failing. I had a professor in college who filled me in on this little factoid. Those other countries that appear to be excelling and exceeding the U.S. in math and science only test the top 5% or 10% of their students. In the U.S. we test the entire student population. Now if that is not comparing apples to oranges, I don't know what is. I would postulate that U.S. schools are not "failing." Parents and families are "failing." The school is not in the job of social work and cannot fix what is wrong in the home. It is a fact in any society that cream rises to the top. Smart kids are always going to be smart kids. When we try to "leave no child behind," the children who get hurt are the ones who really ought to be pursuing vocational education but are being pushed into more academic subjects because no one wants them to be left behind. Well, face it folks ... some people have to fix cars, fix plumbing, fix electricity, string cable wire, dig ditches, clean toilets for cripes sake. Our society requires these tasks ... are we encouraging any of these kids to do any of this stuff? Do we make them feel like failures if that is what they want to do? That is just wrong. The people who do the "dirty" work in this country are the most important people living here. What would we do without them? 277085[/snapback] Actually there is big trouble in higher education due to the declining preparedness of high school graduates. The struggle is to prepare in four to five years the same quality of graduate produced a few short years ago when students who came to college were largeley college-ready. In my state, my department chair attended a meeting held at the leading public institution here, and all campuses in the system were reporting the same decline. It is serious and real. There is more testing done than just what your teacher refered to as the top 5 and 10 percent of other countries' students. There is correct scientific testing done at specified grade levels ( I can't rememeber which grades, nor the names of the tests) and the US is loosing ground dramatically. The results of the last round of such tests were widely discussed a few years ago. But I think there will always be a need for the availibility of good public education. Some talented people got their chance because they got an education, and this in spite of a poor home life. I think if the opportunity for education is not available to all, a lot of the 'cream' will curdle. (And I understand and agree with TUH's concern that the family is key to solving the current crisis in education...particularly the problem with much too young unwed mothers.....). Not all public education is of poor quality. What was mentioned above is an excellent example of a functioning public school system. Where I grew up also had a superior public school system. But it had one huge high school. Probably about 80% to 85% of the students went to college, the remainder to work. But our huge suburban campus also had a career center that prepared students to be auto mechanics, secretaries, etc. They had to meet the high school graduation requirements, but they could also take vocational courses at the career center. One of my best friends, who I met in junior high school in the honors math class, decided she just wanted to get married and have children, and prepared to be a secretary. After high school she worked until she found a husband. People at my high school were able to make that choice. There were 1,179 people in my graduating class (including a current US astronaut---never heard of him till my mother pointed out that the newspaper said he was in my graduating class at my high school.) . I had never before seen the people immediately before me and after me in line during the graduation ceremony. We had to graduate at a huge arena. That was about 30 years ago. It is still a large school, but current class sizes are between 900 to 950. My nieces have graduated from the same public school, which still has its same caliber of education. Private schools have a role also. My parents sent my oldest brother to a private Catholic High School in the 9th grade, because his grades had fallen and they did not like the group he was running with. One year in that school turned by brother around, and today he is the most successful of my siblings. I could support vochers for parents who pay for private school to get some relief from their tax burden, but I think it is the responsibility of the public to support public education. I do not have children, but I have supported bond measures, and all sorts of funding for public school, because as a citizen it is a benefit to me to see the children educated and able to take over the reigns of society. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odie 0 Posted November 6, 2004 Not to long ago I was standing watch on very, very cold winter night in Portsmouth, VA. The person who was with me at watch said he was from the north. So I asked which state was he from and he said North Carolina. Three years later I still can't get that statement out of head. The American education system is in a decline. It just not getting people ready for college. People still need a basic understanding of the world that they live in. The person that I stood watch with didn't now much about his own country or geography. IMO the federal govement should have control of the educational system and same set standards for the students and teachers. Each state has their own set of standards. Some of them are very high and some are too low. The funding of the educational system needs to change. The local tax base in some areas longer meets the needs of their school system. I wonder how well a students would do if all the funding was the same in each state. Here is a list on the funding on each state. Click For Spoiler New Jersey...........................$8,801 New York..............................7,853 Connecticut............................7,635 Wisconsin...............................7,448 Delaware................................7,255 Pennsylvania...........................7,202 Rhode Island..........................6,930 West Virginia.........................6,908 Michigan................................6,873 Iowa......................................6,823 Nebraska...............................6,799 Wyoming...............................6,790 Minnesota.............................6,767 Vermont...............................6,746 Maine...................................6,739 Indiana.................................6,661 Alaska.................................6,581 Maryland.............................6,544 Massachusetts......................6,518 Oregon................................6,422 Montana..............................6,349 Kansas................................6,311 Ohio....................................6,251 Virginia................................6,215 Kentucky.............................6,196 New Hampshire...................$6,195 Georgia..................................5,998 Washington............................5,995 Illinois....................................5,991 Louisiana...............................5,989 North Dakota........................5,979 Florida...................................5,829 South Carolina.......................5,827 Missouri................................5,817 Texas....................................5,815 North Carolina......................5,763 South Dakota........................5,667 Colorado..............................5,599 Nevada................................5,478 Hawaii.................................5,430 Alabama..............................5,356 New Mexico........................5,339 Oklahoma............................5,317 Arkansas.............................5,268 Tennessee...........................5,223 Idaho..................................5,029 California............................4,939 Mississippi..........................4,924 Arizona...............................4,629 Utah...................................3,804 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Phaserman 0 Posted November 6, 2004 Interesting, Odie. I should point out, though, that if you compare the American school system to the schools in the bulk of Asia (Not including Japan, but including the Middle East) as well as those in Africa and South America, we are doing better than they are. Just a little shiney spot on some ugly looking brass there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odie 0 Posted November 6, 2004 (edited) Very true, but I don't like to compare to third world nations that suggle with basic problems with our educational system. It's easier to compare with the states. You may find this interesting. I know of a person from Africa that spoke better English than most of the people who he works with on the job. Edited November 6, 2004 by Odie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
He Who Shall Not Be Named 2 Posted November 6, 2004 IMO the federal govement should have control of the educational system and same set standards for the students and teachers. No they should not. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a power of the federal government is to be left to the state and local governments. Education is not in the Constitution. The funding of the educational system needs to change. The local tax base in some areas longer meets the needs of their school system. I wonder how well a students would do if all the funding was the same in each state. Here is a list on the funding on each state. Click For Spoiler New Jersey...........................$8,801 New York..............................7,853 Connecticut............................7,635 Wisconsin...............................7,448 Delaware................................7,255 Pennsylvania...........................7,202 Rhode Island..........................6,930 West Virginia.........................6,908 Michigan................................6,873 Iowa......................................6,823 Nebraska...............................6,799 Wyoming...............................6,790 Minnesota.............................6,767 Vermont...............................6,746 Maine...................................6,739 Indiana.................................6,661 Alaska.................................6,581 Maryland.............................6,544 Massachusetts......................6,518 Oregon................................6,422 Montana..............................6,349 Kansas................................6,311 Ohio....................................6,251 Virginia................................6,215 Kentucky.............................6,196 New Hampshire...................$6,195 Georgia..................................5,998 Washington............................5,995 Illinois....................................5,991 Louisiana...............................5,989 North Dakota........................5,979 Florida...................................5,829 South Carolina.......................5,827 Missouri................................5,817 Texas....................................5,815 North Carolina......................5,763 South Dakota........................5,667 Colorado..............................5,599 Nevada................................5,478 Hawaii.................................5,430 Alabama..............................5,356 New Mexico........................5,339 Oklahoma............................5,317 Arkansas.............................5,268 Tennessee...........................5,223 Idaho..................................5,029 California............................4,939 Mississippi..........................4,924 Arizona...............................4,629 Utah...................................3,804 278249[/snapback] Are you saying that a state with an education problem like New Jersey should also help pay for the education in Utah where there isn't nearly as great a problem? Utah doesn't need it and it isn't fair to Jersey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odie 0 Posted November 6, 2004 IMO the federal govement should have control of the educational system and same set standards for the students and teachers. No they should not. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a power of the federal government is to be left to the state and local governments. Education is not in the Constitution. The Constitution can change to meet the demands of the nation. Its far from easy, but it can be done, and has been done in the past. Education should than be place in the Constitution. Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Education is very important in democracy. It is shame in this day and age there still people who can't read or write. The most states are failing to educate our students. When education fails democracy will fail as well. The funding of the educational system needs to change. The local tax base in some areas longer meets the needs of their school system. I wonder how well a students would do if all the funding was the same in each state. Here is a list on the funding on each state. Click For Spoiler New Jersey...........................$8,801 New York..............................7,853 Connecticut............................7,635 Wisconsin...............................7,448 Delaware................................7,255 Pennsylvania...........................7,202 Rhode Island..........................6,930 West Virginia.........................6,908 Michigan................................6,873 Iowa......................................6,823 Nebraska...............................6,799 Wyoming...............................6,790 Minnesota.............................6,767 Vermont...............................6,746 Maine...................................6,739 Indiana.................................6,661 Alaska.................................6,581 Maryland.............................6,544 Massachusetts......................6,518 Oregon................................6,422 Montana..............................6,349 Kansas................................6,311 Ohio....................................6,251 Virginia................................6,215 Kentucky.............................6,196 New Hampshire...................$6,195 Georgia..................................5,998 Washington............................5,995 Illinois....................................5,991 Louisiana...............................5,989 North Dakota........................5,979 Florida...................................5,829 South Carolina.......................5,827 Missouri................................5,817 Texas....................................5,815 North Carolina......................5,763 South Dakota........................5,667 Colorado..............................5,599 Nevada................................5,478 Hawaii.................................5,430 Alabama..............................5,356 New Mexico........................5,339 Oklahoma............................5,317 Arkansas.............................5,268 Tennessee...........................5,223 Idaho..................................5,029 California............................4,939 Mississippi..........................4,924 Arizona...............................4,629 Utah...................................3,804 278249[/snapback] Are you saying that a state with an education problem like New Jersey should also help pay for the education in Utah where there isn't nearly as great a problem? Utah doesn't need it and it isn't fair to Jersey. 278253[/snapback] No I am not saying that at all. I am just showing the difference in the funder per student in each state. The some local areas in the country that can't meet the demands of their educational system and the funding should change to meet the needs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
He Who Shall Not Be Named 2 Posted November 6, 2004 (edited) Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. 278254[/snapback] What this means is the federal government can pass the laws necessary for the functioning of it's Constitution-mandated responsibilities. It is not an open-ended statement saying the federal government can assign itself duties at whim. It is steping on the state and local governments when it does that. Education is not a power vested in the Constitution, it's that simple. Even if Clause 18 did say that, Amendment 10 would superceed it anyway. Edited November 6, 2004 by Lt. Van Roy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Data 0 Posted November 6, 2004 I did not read everything in this thread. Because while reading, an interesting thought came to mind. Some of the greatest people in the history of this country did not have formal public education. Two that come to mind were Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln. Franklin was an apprentice. Lincoln managed to become a Lawyer after only having a small education beforehand. There are many others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wishfire 2 Posted November 6, 2004 I don't know about the whole "Private Schools being better than Public Schools" thing. I went to a public school, and we had the best educational materials/programs in the entire state! And that was including private schools. In fact, the best private school came in 7th (I think) of the state. Of course, not every state is as good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odie 0 Posted November 6, 2004 (edited) Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. 278254[/snapback] What this means is the federal government can pass the laws necessary for the functioning of it's Constitution-mandated responsibilities. It is not an open-ended statement saying the federal government can assign itself duties at whim. It is steping on the state and local governments when it does that. Education is not a power vested in the Constitution, it's that simple. Even if Clause 18 did say that, Amendment 10 would superceed it anyway. 278263[/snapback] Clause 18 is from the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18. So you are saying that Amendment 10 superceeds Article 1. I don't think so. It has to be open-ended. The demands that the Founding Father face are not the same that we face in the early 21st century. If the Constitution is too rigid or too loss the government will not function properly. When most states have problems when educating it youth is national crisis that need to be address at a federal level. There should be national standards that every student and teacher should be meet. That is the reason for No-Child-Left-Behind Law. @Data there was apprenticeship programs that not long exists. In their time if a person whats to be a lawyer was easier than it now. When they ready to become a lawyer they had to apprentice them self to a lawyer. The actually lawyer will have fee for the apprenticeship. While they are apprentice they will learn everything they need to know about law so they can take the bar exam. Once they pass the bar exam they are lawyers. Now a person has to have high school diploma, bachelor's degree, and masters in law to be a lawyer now. Edited November 6, 2004 by Odie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theunicornhunter 2 Posted November 6, 2004 (edited) Odie, Lt. Van Roy is right, the clause you quoted clearly stated the government has power to pass laws related to its constitutionally designated reponsibilities. That is a far different thing than saying it can usurp any responsibility it chooses. The two clauses are unrelated. Yes, the constitution can be amended - but there is a process. Article V Click For Spoiler The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. As not reading any of our posts. I'll reiterate - increasing funding won't solve the problem because lack of money is not the main problem. You need to address the causes of educational failure - otherwise you'll never be able to throw enough money at it. That is my concern with government - they raise taxes for programs but never really try to solve the problem. And it's a J.D. (doctor of jurisprudence) not a masters that is awarded by law schools. ***edited arrggh left out a word Edited November 6, 2004 by TheUnicornHunter Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odie 0 Posted November 6, 2004 (edited) And it's a J.D. (doctor of jurisprudence) not a masters that is awarded by law schools. 278271[/snapback] Thanks, I wasn't sure. Just throwing money won't won't solve anything. There are districts in this country that are unfunded, and increase funding will help. The problems with education is complex issue. There is one thing that I am sure of education is important to democracy to run well. Sometimes it does feel like Congress usurp any responsibility it chooses. That is why there is No-Child-Left-Behind Law. In many way it does step on the toes of the state and local governments. Click For Spoiler The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (No Child Left Behind) is a landmark in education reform designed to improve student achievement and change the culture of America's schools. President George W. Bush describes this law as the "cornerstone of my administration." Clearly, our children are our future, and, as President Bush has expressed, "Too many of our neediest children are being left behind." With passage of No Child Left Behind, Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)--the principal federal law affecting education from kindergarten through high school. In amending ESEA, the new law represents a sweeping overhaul of federal efforts to support elementary and secondary education in the United States. It is built on four common-sense pillars: accountability for results; an emphasis on doing what works based on scientific research; expanded parental options; and expanded local control and flexibility. WHAT NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND DOES FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN Supports learning in the early years, thereby preventing many learning difficulties that may arise later Children who enter school with language skills and pre-reading skills (e.g., understanding that print reads from left to right and top to bottom) are more likely to learn to read well in the early grades and succeed in later years. In fact, research shows that most reading problems faced by adolescents and adults are the result of problems that could have been prevented through good instruction in their early childhood years (Snow, Burns and Griffin 1998). It is never too early to start building language skills by talking with and reading to children. No Child Left Behind targets resources for early childhood education so that all youngsters get the right start. Provides more information for parents about their child's progress Under No Child Left Behind, each state must measure every public school student's progress in reading and math in each of grades 3 through 8 and at least once during grades 10 through 12. By school year 2007-2008, assessments (or testing) in science will be underway. These assessments must be aligned with state academic content and achievement standards. They will provide parents with objective data on where their child stands academically. Alerts parents to important information on the performance of their child's school No Child Left Behind requires states and school districts to give parents easy-to-read, detailed report cards on schools and districts, telling them which ones are succeeding and why. Included in the report cards are student achievement data broken out by race, ethnicity, gender, English language proficiency, migrant status, disability status and low-income status; as well as important information about the professional qualifications of teachers. With these provisions, No Child Left Behind ensures that parents have important, timely information about the schools their children attend--whether they are performing well or not for all children, regardless of their background. Gives children and parents a lifeline In this new era of education, children will no longer be trapped in the dead end of low-performing schools. Under No Child Left Behind, such schools must use their federal funds to make needed improvements. In the event of a school's continued poor performance, parents have options to ensure that their children receive the high-quality education to which they are entitled. That might mean that children can transfer to higher-performing schools in the area or receive supplemental educational services in the community, such as tutoring, after-school programs or remedial classes. Improves teaching and learning by providing better information to teachers and principals Annual tests to measure children's progress provide teachers with independent information about each child's strengths and weaknesses. With this knowledge, teachers can craft lessons to make sure each student meets or exceeds the standards. In addition, principals can use the data to assess exactly how much progress each teacher's students have made and to better inform decisions about how to run their schools. Ensures that teacher quality is a high priority No Child Left Behind defines the qualifications needed by teachers and paraprofessionals who work on any facet of classroom instruction. It requires that states develop plans to achieve the goal that all teachers of core academic subjects be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year. States must include in their plans annual, measurable objectives that each local school district* and school must meet in moving toward the goal; they must report on their progress in the annual report cards. Gives more resources to schools Today, more than $7,000 on average is spent per pupil by local, state and federal taxpayers. States and local school districts are now receiving more federal funding than ever before for all programs under No Child Left Behind: $23.7 billion, most of which will be used during the 2003-04 school year. This represents an increase of 59.8 percent from 2000 to 2003. A large portion of these funds is for grants under Title I of ESEA: Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged. Title I grants are awarded to states and local education agencies to help states and school districts improve the education of disadvantaged students; turn around low-performing schools; improve teacher quality; and increase choices for parents. (For more about Title I, see the introductory paragraph to Q-and-As.) For fiscal year (FY) 2003, funding for Title I alone is $11.7 billion--an increase of 33 percent since the passage of No Child Left Behind. President Bush's FY 2004 budget request would increase spending on Title I by 48 percent since he took office. Allows more flexibility In exchange for the strong accountability, No Child Left Behind gives states and local education agencies more flexibility in the use of their federal education funding. As a result, principals and administrators spend less time filling out forms and dealing with federal red tape. They have more time to devote to students' needs. They have more freedom to implement innovations and allocate resources as policymakers at the state and local levels see fit, thereby giving local people a greater opportunity to affect decisions regarding their schools' programs. Focuses on what works No Child Left Behind puts a special emphasis on implementing educational programs and practices that have been clearly demonstrated to be effective through rigorous scientific research. Federal funding will be targeted to support such programs. For example, the Reading First program makes federal funds available to help reading teachers in the early grades strengthen old skills and gain new ones in instructional techniques that scientifically based research has shown to be effective. Edited November 6, 2004 by Odie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wishfire 2 Posted November 7, 2004 Oh, crap, if you want to improve school systems, the first thing you have to do is stop worrying about whether or not the parents agree with a specific book. Then you have to choose teachers according to their teaching skills, rather then their personal beliefs (I know, it's illegal to discriminate for that, but school boards still manage to find ways around that). Finally, you have to fight for as much money from the government to go toward the best educational tools available. Or, if the government can/will not give the money, hold as many fund-raisers as it takes. I know that when my son is old enough to go to school, I will donate as much money as I can toward the appropriation of the best (or, at the very least, better) textbooks and other resources. Even if I have to donate my time to extra-carricular activies, as long as it helps him and every other student, I'll do it. If every parent donated even 2 dollars per day for every day a child spends in school (most, if not all, schools require 180 days), that's 360 dollars. For a school of just 500, that's still $180,000 for the school to provide better things! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theunicornhunter 2 Posted November 7, 2004 The fact remains that the most important influence on your child's futue performance will be how he/she spends those years between birth and kindergarten. This isn't saying that adequate buildings and supplies arent' important - of course they are. But no textbook can compensate for a child's lack of reading readiness. And it is not a teacher's job to teach children manners and respect. I am only a few credits short of a getting a teaching certificate but it is the latter that turns me off. When congress passes an act the "carrot" they use to get states to comply is federal money. Some states choose to forgo federal funding in order to establish their own programs. I, as a taxpayer, am tired of forking out more and more money to support programs that don't address the root causes of the problem - because politicians are afraid to address the real problems. And parents do have a right to be involved in their child's education and actually Wishfire, you point out why more people opt for private school. I certainly wouldn't want to spend my money on a school system that violates the First Amendment by endorsing a specific belief system. I don't know what your beef with textbooks is but some of the issues I have read that has been the reason. On the other hand, good luck finding good textbooks - from what I understand they are so racked with misinformation and unchecked facts it is scary. Some of my favorites were history books that devote a paragraph to the founding fathers and twenty five pages to Marilyn Monroe? Or the one that said the Statue of Liberty was covered by wrong metal (aluminum I think). She was green because that is the color "copper" oxidizes to, hopefull the chemistry teacher caught that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wishfire 2 Posted November 7, 2004 (edited) When I said a specific book, I was thinking of instances I had heard of within my old school district then parents opposed certain literary novels be used in the class because of their content. For instance, the parents when I was a Freshman wanted the schools to stop using Catcher in the Rye because it contains the "f" word several times. I was not referring to text books. For a school to determine which textbooks are acceptable, they would need to put together a committee. Unfortunately, that requires money. Of course... Yes, I know I said I'd like to see better textbooks, but I also said I want to see better alternative resources, such as computers and the means for good extra-curricular programs. But, UH, I do agree that the parents should encourage their children to learn before they even go to school. My grandmother taught me to read when I was 4, and when my son is old enough to talk, I'm going to read to him as often as possible, and I do plan on showing him the words I'm reading so that he can get a better grasp on reading. If every parent did that, GPAs would probably be so much further up then they are now. It confuses and outrages me how a parent (or even a set of parents) can't find even 20 minutes a day to read to their children, or to encourage them watch something that will help them, like Sesame Street, or Reading Rainbow (if that show's still on). *Sigh.* I guess most Americans have no one to blame but themselves. Edited November 7, 2004 by wishfire Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mj 7 Posted November 7, 2004 But, UH, I do agree that the parents should encourage their children to learn before they even go to school. My grandmother taught me to read when I was 4, and when my son is old enough to talk, I'm going to read to him as often as possible, and I do plan on showing him the words I'm reading so that he can get a better grasp on reading. *Sigh.* I guess most Americans have no one to blame but themselves. 278655[/snapback] Start reading to him as soon as you can hold him in your lap. I was my oldest niece's main babysitter the first two years of her life, beginning when she was about five months old. My sister-in-law had a routine she wanted me to carry out, so I did. It included reading color-filled, picture-filled books, with brief rhyming words ( and also Dr. Seuss) to her. The result was she acquired language quickly, and loved reading. She could sit still and had good listening skills from very early on. One of her first words, along with mama and dada, was book. I did that with all the children in that family, and with my sister's son, when I sat with them. I had little input into the other brother's children. And there is a complete difference between that brother's children, and the others, in terms of school readiness and performance, and discipline. (But all the children have friendly, lively personalities.) It is not too early to start reading to an infant. My oldest niece is today an English major in college, and a jazz saxophonist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theunicornhunter 2 Posted November 7, 2004 I agree with MJ, when babies are read to they are exposed to the sounds that make up words (phenomes). The more phenomes a child recognizes the higher their reading readiness. They've done some studies to measure this in first graders. On a sad note those studies also indicated that a child that leaves first grade behind in reading will remain behind throughout their school years. Which is why I feel, if we're going to have "programs" we should target at risk toddlers rather than waiting until the fourth grade (example) to try and fix it. Also, I've read that just talking to your toddlers while you're either taking a walk or fixing dinner etc. helps expose them to sounds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
