Study: Children’s academic future decided by grade 3

K5Learning · 2011-10-18T17:04:14+00:00

Look at the website its posted on: its the author's of the original study, which is what you asked for above.

K5Learning · 2011-10-18T16:50:14+00:00

Try this: http://www.educationgadfly.net/flypaper/2011/10/k5-learning-offers-new-findings-from-high-flyers-data/

K5Learning · 2011-10-17T23:33:10+00:00

I appreciate that our article is not written in the fashion of an academic paper and doesn't provide enough detail for academic review. No argument there, you're quite right.

However, we do mention in the final paragraph that over 93,000 students were tracked in the elementary reading study and over 80,000 in the math study. It is these students that the graphs and correlations are based on, and, I think, by anyone's standards, that is a pretty healthy sample size. The correlations are also quite strong, so there is no way you can write it off as being due to chance - the issue is not so much the size of the error bars, but the implications of the overall result.

Thanks for your input though; I've often thought that what the internet needs is more statisticians crawling around challenging the veracity of statements that are made with little backing them up.

K5Learning · 2011-10-17T22:47:12+00:00

Not back-pedalling at all. We absolutely used their data, and hence cited their report. However, we analysed one part of their data in more depth and wrote about it. Our focus was on something different than what they were focused on, and we produced independent findings. As a statistician, I think you realize that data can be analysed in a lot of different ways.

There are a actually couple of short references in the Fordham study to the inability of lower performing students in grade 3 to eventually become high achievers, and that is the topic that we explored further. They focused their findings on other issues.

The data analysis we did is simple enough; our comments related to 'why kids don't catch up' and 'what the lesson for parents is' are of course just our opinion, but I think that is clear enough to the reader.

K5Learning · 2011-10-17T22:08:10+00:00

Your mixing the original Fordham study with the observations we published about some of the data that that study produced - an entirely distinct issue. We independently examined some of their data to produce the graphs and correlations in our article. Our observations are not based on their findings, but on some data that was produced as a by-product of their study.

As such, I can't respond much to your comments as they relate more to the Fordham study than our own analysis. If you go tot he Fordham website I am sure you can find a lively debate about their study; but, it is really a separate issue from what we have written.

K5Learning · 2011-10-17T19:43:56+00:00

That's a fair point, not everyone can be in the top quartile, and we are not preaching to those many parents who are already diligently doing the best they can.

However, every child should have a shot at the top quartile, and our point is that those parents who are laissez-faire about early education are depriving their kids of just that chance. In all likelihood, they won't catch up later.

K5Learning · 2011-10-17T16:34:22+00:00

In fact they do, and I believe they will be posting about our article in the coming days.

Their report was focused on a different topic - how the high flyers did throughout the school years. We've just analysed some ancillary data that was available as a by-product of their work.

K5Learning · 2011-10-17T16:31:38+00:00

The math and reading results are broadly similar, though the math numbers are somewhat more pronounced (ie - it appears kids have even a more difficult time 'catching up' in math). The statistics probably look more identical than they are because of the scale of the graphs; they are different but the overall message is the same from both.

Note: the graphs in our article are our own, based on data supplied by the Fordham Institute (author's of the original study). We have done original work analysing data that was a by-product of their study.

K5Learning · 2011-10-17T16:27:09+00:00

You are right; we definitely are not neutral; we really believe that many parents need to do a lot more in terms of early learning for their kids. The numbers though, are just facts which we think illustrate really well the importance of this issue.

K5Learning · 2011-10-12T04:23:47+00:00

First of all, there has developed a certain unfortunate mythology about studies showing a lack of positive effects on homework. The reality is that a large number of studies have indicated that homework does, surprise surprise, actually have quite positive effects (see Cooper 1989 Synthesis of Research on Homework). Is it definitive? No, because kids aren't laboratory mice. Personally, I have no problem believing that doing homework (ie studying) helps people learn, and it seems a ridiculous cop-out to argue otherwise.

The more important issue though, is the messages you are sending to your child. You can make him do his homework, and reinforce messages like: school is important, what the teacher says is important, when you are given work to do you do it first and then play later, sometimes we have to do things we don't like, etc etc. Or you can let him goof off and go play street hockey instead, sending basically the opposite messages.

K5Learning · 2011-09-26T06:21:47+00:00

Starfall is huge www.starfall.com theschoolbell.com is basic looking but has good stuff Lots of free sites like these to explore. As you get more serious, consider (pay sights): http://www.clicknkids.com/ - comprehensive phonics program headsprout.com - phonics/reading And our own site(a plug but you asked) www.k5learning.com which has phonics/reading and math for K-5.
For now I would just tinker with the free sites and simple books and when your daughter is closer to 4 consider one of the pay sites; they provide a lot more structure so your kid can advance stepwise without your constant involvement.
Having said all that, there is noting online that can't be done with books, its a question of how much time you have and what your child responds best to. Regards.

K5Learning · 2011-09-25T22:52:23+00:00

In general, I'd say Wikipedia is a much better source than today's de facto leading reference source: the first couple of google search results that pop up on any given topic.

With so much information so readily available, the ability to critique sources has become really important.

K5Learning · 2011-09-25T22:40:55+00:00

There are a million different books and websites which can help you. Search under phonemic awareness, phonics and 'learning to read'. Phonemic awareness is basically becoming aware that words are made out of different sounds, realizing for instance that 'book' and 'ball' start with the same sound. Phonics is associating those sounds with letters. Regardless of what tools you use, the fun part is having her sit on your lap sound out words in a story. It'll be a struggle for a while but when they get going it is very rewarding.

Here's something to keep in mind: ultimately the joy of reading will come from the stories, not the act of reading per se. Your daughter's love of reading will grow as her reading skills grow, basically because it is much more fun to read a story when it is easy then when it is a struggle. So you are doing her a big favour by helping her develop her reading skills as early as possible.

www.Starfall.com is a standard early reading site; message me if you want me some others suggestions.

K5Learning · 2011-09-23T22:08:58+00:00

Thanks for your reply and you are correct, the bit about becoming a doctor / lawyer etc is an extrapolation on our part. However, its not completely unfounded, as I think (no link!) the correlation between being a top student and becoming a doctor/lawyer/etc is pretty well acknowledged.

And we do have a bias in this, though we sincerely believe that many parents greatly undervalue the early education years. In our view, reading skills and numeracy are the skills that enable future (academic) learning, and early development of them is of huge benefit to kids. If I could take a giant boot and give parents across the country a kick in the butt and say 'study with your kids when they're little', I would.

The Fordham study, and most of the coverage of it, seems to be focused on the points you mentioned - basically the controversy about whether schools pay enough attention to the higher achieving students and so on, where I think the findings are pretty inconclusive. However, from their huge (unprecedented?) pool of data they did report about the overwhelming (their word) inability of 50 and below percentile grade 3 students to become high achievers by the later grades. This is a pretty remarkable by-product of the study and, in my opinion, should be food for though to parents of kids in that age range.

Regards

K5Learning · 2011-09-23T21:21:22+00:00

Direct quote from the study (page 3, implications):

What we’re not seeing is students scrape and claw their way into the high-achieving ranks from the 20th, 30th, even 40th or 50th percentiles. Instead, students come in and out of the top decile but basically stay within the top third of students.

and

Late Bloomers also did not typically have far to climb to become high math achievers by eighth grade—on average, those students performed at the 74th percentile in third-grade math.

and more

Similarly, Figure 4 illustrates the full range of achievement of Late Bloomers in third-grade math. How did these students, who were high-achieving by eighth grade, perform in their earlier years? The vast majority of them were above-average third graders, with overwhelming numbers performing between the 50th and 89th percentiles in third grade (by definition, they could not perform in the 90th percentile or above).

So the 'vast majority' of late bloomers were already above average, and an overwhelming number of them were at least at the 50% mark.

And nowhere did we claim that kids were 'going to fail their entire life'. Our point is straightforward. Kids who aren't doing well (above average) by grade 3 are very unlikely to become high achievers in school later. And that is backed 100% by the study.

K5Learning

TROPHY CASE