Parts of this chapter can be read on Google Books, and ESPN has a Q&A with Gladwell that addresses the issue, but here is the basic gist: His explanation is that, because children born in January of a given year start out as the oldest (and therefore probably the largest, most developed, most coordinated, etc.) kids on their youth hockey teams, which makes a bigger difference at a very young age, they are more likely to emerge as early "stars" than their peers born later in the same year. As a result, they are also more likely to be selected for premier teams, receive better coaching, have more opportunities for hockey camps, and so on. In other words, the initial advantage of being slightly more developed than their teammates can snowball, even potentially landing them on a professional team - all due to the arbitrary cutoff date used by youth hockey leagues. Meanwhile, a child born in, say, November, may actually have more innate talent in the sport, but because he starts out so far behind the children with January and February birthdays, the system makes it much more difficult for him to fulfill his potential.
Poplin and Phillips (1993) make a point about early literacy that I see as relating to Gladwell's observation. They note that
in many cultures, literacy is not seen as something everyone must possess or that everyone must attain at the same age... In these cultures, failure and disability are not designated when one does not read and write at a specific time. In contrast, our culture's concept of time as precise and regular influences the way we define normal and abnormal development, and the way we structure schools. This notion of time and development often prohibits us from giving the real time and space necessary for large numbers of people to learn written language. (p. 252)This argument isn't quite the same: rather than arguing, like Gladwell, that a student's early success in school will necessarily correlate to his or her relative age among peers in, say, kindergarten, Poplin and Phillips (1993) acknowledge that children develop differently and at different rates; therefore, it doesn't make sense to expect that all students will learn to read and write at the same age or pace. Whereas some other cultures recognize this, the American school system groups students by age and expects all students in each grade to meet academic benchmarks at the same pace, without taking into account these individual differences.
My impression, based on my own school experiences as well as observations working with younger elementary students, is that this can result in an effect similar to that of Gladwell's hockey players. The students who develop earliest among their peers in the first years of school are quickly identified by students and teachers alike as "the smart kids," whereas students who have trouble during this time, due in part to natural differences in development, may be labelled as the kids who just aren't good at school. In addition to being treated differently by peers and adults, these groups of students are likely to internalize the labels, which may have ongoing effects on their success and motivation in school, possibly even throughout their academic careers. The "smart kids" continue to be rewarded as the "kids who need extra help" fall further and further behind.
Do you agree? Is this criticism of the American approach to time in schools a valid one? Should all students be expected to learn to read and write at the same age and pace? What do you think of the idea of grouping students in the early grades based on their emotional, intellectual, and/or literacy skills development, rather than letting age alone determine a student's grade level?
Stephanie's post sparked my interest as it speaks to the idea of children developing academically in the American school system. I am in complete agreement that children whose birthdays occur before some of their fellow students may perform better in school as a result of their further physical and "mental" development... if you will. On a personal level, a "January kid," I always felt more comfortable in the classroom than my younger brother, a "June kid," who struggled academically throughout his schooling. Was this a matter of being smarter? I don't think so. A student's comfort level in the classroom from a young age depends not only on their ability to understand the material, but on their ability to socialize with their teacher and their fellow students. Younger students in the class may not feel as comfortable in this capacity, causing them to fall back socially and academically.
ReplyDeleteI found this article by Catherine Bruton, "Do We Send Our Children to School Too Young?" (I have attached the link below) describing the ages at which children are sent to school outside the US. In the UK, parents send their children to school at the age of 4, where in Germany, children do not enter school until 6 or 7, the belief being that they need to focus more on developing their comfort level in a social setting before diving into academics. This returns to the question: "At what age is is best to send a child to school?" If children are sent to school at the age of 4, what about the 4 year olds on the younger side of the spectrum? Will they fall behind, creating a sense of failure and possible desire, later in their lives, to give up on school altogether?
Bruton states, "Looking at the relationship between the age of starting school and reading performance at the ages of 9 and 14, they assessed children from 32 different countries, in most of which children started school at 5, 6 and 7, and found the top-achieving countries had a later starting age." Is this because they were more academically prepared, having more experience with reading and literacy? Or were they simply more relaxed and comfortable in the classroom setting because they started school at an older age?- Katie Flynn
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article2392738.ece
I disagree with the birthday issue-- I've seen plenty of kids with later birthdays excel both in school and sports (sometimes even better than their peers that were a few months older). There are so many factors (reading support at home, school system teaching methods, individual teachers, etc.) that play into learning to read that maybe it could be an issue for a few of the younger students but definitely not all of them.
ReplyDeleteAlso looking at the idea of starting school at an older age... I agree with what Caroline Sharp says within that same article:
“International comparisons are indirect evidence at best because they involve such different cultures and educational systems. What we can say is that a later start appears not to be a disadvantage to children’s progress.”
I think that starting school later wouldn't hurt some students, especially if they are not ready to be in a classroom setting or show no signs of beginning to read. However after working in preschool for a few years and working with kids who were picking up basic reading skills at three and four years old, I don't believe the opportunity to enter school at four and five should be taken away as it would waste the potential of these children.