5 ms·

Kindergarten doesn't need to be a thing. It's convenient for parents and probably not bad for children in ordinary times, but COVID kindergarten is pretty point

Kindergarten doesn't need to be a thing. It's convenient for parents and probably not bad for children in ordinary times, but COVID kindergarten is pretty pointless.

mlyle 6y ago
Normal Kindergarten is correlated with better academic achievement later. COVID Kindergarten is worthless. My youngest is in first grade now, and is about the most eager-to-please and attentive child you'll ever find (haha, not the older two). But when he's been remote it's been only barely viable...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  > correlated with better academic achievement later Correlation usually doesn't indicate causation.
  - msla 6y ago
    > Correlation usually doesn't indicate causation. I think this is taking "correlation doesn't always prove causation" a few steps too far, right off a cliff. There are difficulties with reasoning from correlation, but saying it "usually doesn't" indicate correlation is too bold, especially in experiments where confounders have been controlled for. [1] [1] (And don't get me started with the semi-clever types who ask if this or that variable has been controlled for when the study or the article about the study explicitly says it has. Save us all from halfwits trying to teach experienced researchers their business.)
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      https://www.gwern.net/Causality https://www.gwern.net/Causality provides more empirical background on my view.
      - mlyle 6y ago
        OK, so we'll go with "pedantry". We have both very strong evidence of correlation here, and occasional measures showing causal relationships in randomized studies -- Head Start, children randomized to different amounts of Kindergarten by individual city programs, etc. And sure, we have very poor data on what happens to affluent kids with involved parents, because this is a difficult population to study (haha, randomize my kids out to a half-day of K? Nothanks.) But, hey, you thought you could dunk on some bro on the internet, so.. high five!
        asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        I agree that my topmost comment was a little loose, but that wasn't targeted at any individual person. Having the relationship between correlation and observed to you is not a dunk (I hope). The preponderance of evidence I've been exposed to does not show a strong positive clinically significant effect of mainstream kindergarten, the one Head Start study you referenced notwithstanding. For example, here is one study that finds in the opposite direction. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0034654309359185?journalCode=rera https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/003465430935918... This is the sum of what I was trying to get across, in so many words. Sorry if the way I said it made you feel bad. I don't really want to cite studies at each other all day. I honestly don't have time for it and it's a little too amenable to cherry-picking. If there is a well-regarded summary of the literature that you're aware of, I'm happy to read it. But this really isn't that big of a deal to me, so please don't feel obligated to respond.
        mlyle 6y ago
        The cherry that you picked is a good example. You point to a study showing a small (but positive) marginal benefit of full-day kindergarten over half-day kindergarten to refute my original assertion that kindergarten in general is good? mkay. If you have academic library access, here's a Harvard meta-analysis of ECE (e.g. preschool/pre-K). 7 of the input studies were randomized to ECE vs. non-ECE. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X17737739 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X1773773...
    - astrange 6y ago
      > [1] (And don't get me started with the semi-clever types who ask if this or that variable has been controlled for when the study or the article about the study explicitly says it has. Save us all from halfwits trying to teach experienced researchers their business.) This is specifically called "shallow dismissal" in the HN rules (used to be "middle-brow dismissal"). Basically this is when you don't read the article and reply with something that sounds smart and applies in the general situation, but not here because the authors knew that too.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    No. But we do have some evidence of causation-- e.g. children offered Head Start programs do better than children that were not. E.g. Ludwig and Miller (2007) showed a 3% increase in high school graduation rates and a 4% increase in college attendance in disadvantaged youth offered early education. That's a big difference for a treatment 15 years later.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      > . . . in disadvantaged youth offered early education. Head Start was a lot more than just early education. It was social services, nutrition, mental health services, and even the employment of some parents of the Head Start children. I should be clear that I do not mean to claim the total absence of benefits of kindergarten. I was exaggerating. The position I will stake is that I believe the benefits are likely very minor, even outside of COVID, and especially for affluent children.
      - mlyle 6y ago
        So, then, your intent in responding to my comment was just to be pedantic and snarky, and not to offer any actual information except to parrot the normal correlation != causation line? That was a good use of our time.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        Your one observing a correlation between kindergarten and success? No, I think your comment was likely to engender in the typical reader a belief that kindergarten was known to have a significant and positive causal effect (both statistical and clinical) on outcomes as a general rule. I don't believe this has been established. My intent in responding to your comment was to prevent that belief from wrongly being engendered in the minds of the readers.
    - spoonjim 6y ago
      Is there a possible confounder that the kids whose parents find out about these offerings and take their kids to them are more attentive overall?
- lupire 6y ago
  Normal kindergarten is correlated with achievement because most kids who don't go to kindergarten have higher-poverty low-health home lives. "Kindergarten" in many cases means something as simple as "human contact instead of bad TV" and "difficult nutrition for the day".
- dominotw 6y ago
  > Normal Kindergarten is correlated with better academic achievement later. I don't plan to "teach" my infant anything till he is 5 or 6. Is this a bad plan?
  - justwalt 6y ago
    I can’t think of a single benefit of doing this. What made you come to this conclusion?
    - astrange 6y ago
      Maybe they think learning is pointless before episodic memories form? Which isn't true (you learn languages earlier than that) but I wonder what things it is true for.
  - bombcar 6y ago
    You’re teaching him everyday (kids are naturally inquisitive and mimic), so I assume you mean structured learning. I’d say there’s not necessarily a downside to holding back on structured learning though structure and discipline elsewhere are good.
  - stevekemp 6y ago
    You'll teach your child things, whether you realize it or not. You'll teach him to hold your hand when crossing roads, not running out in front of cars. You'll teach him the way you walk to the local shops and back, you'll teach him that kicking you in the crotch is bad, and that he should say "sorry" and not do it again. You'll probably hang out with neighbours and teach him how to share toys and not fight over them. All that kind of stuff matters, and is important. We started taking our child to kindergarden in Finland when he was 1, he'll be going there until he starts proper-school at 7. Mostly they play, draw, listen to stories, sing etc. It's not academic in any sense, but he still learns. Probably the most important thing he learns is to get dressed and be social with other children of a similar age. He has friends he likes, people he doesn't like, and often these change over a period of weeks/months. I fully expect he'll be able to read in one/two languages by the time he starts school. We read to him every night, and usually I stop and say the "fox in ?" and point to the word - half the time he'll say the right word, half the time he'll be like "I don't know that word". At first I though he'd memorized the dialog, but when I switch to a new book he's never seen before he still recognizes simple words like "cat", "dog", "hat", "car", etc. I don't think I'm teaching him to read, we rarely sit down and do anything for more than a few minutes, but he's picked up a lot of things. Like one day he said "That tram is 10", and now he knows about tram-routes within the city "This tram goes to the library", "This tram goes to the swimming pool". One thing I do when the weather is nice is say "We need to buy cake, where is the cake shop?" He says "go left", "go straight", "go right" and gives directions which we follow. Sometimes he's either confused, or perverse, and sends us in the wrong direction. But that's OK, nice days are worth wasting. But with all that normal stuff we're teaching him stuff, whether it is academic or not.
gnicholas 6y ago
> The study done by Harvard economist, Raj Chetty, and his colleagues suggests that because students who learn more in kindergarten can expect to see their earnings increase significantly, an excellent kindergarten teacher could be worth as much as $320,000 a year. from: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/07/28/128819707/the-kindergarten-experiment https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/07/28/128819707/the-...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/raj-chetty-dummies https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/raj-chetty-dummies
  - gnicholas 6y ago
    Thanks! I’d not heard of criticisms of his work but will look into it. Regardless, I agree with the bottom-line conclusion that his work won’t go away because it fits a narrative that many people would like to believe/advance.

Kindergarten doesn't need to be a thing. It's convenient for parents and probably not bad for children in ordinary times, but COVID kindergarten is pretty pointless.

mlyle 6y ago

Normal Kindergarten is correlated with better academic achievement later. COVID Kindergarten is worthless. My youngest is in first grade now, and is about the most eager-to-please and attentive child you'll ever find (haha, not the older two). But when he's been remote it's been only barely viable...

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
> correlated with better academic achievement later Correlation usually doesn't indicate causation.
- msla 6y ago
  > Correlation usually doesn't indicate causation. I think this is taking "correlation doesn't always prove causation" a few steps too far, right off a cliff. There are difficulties with reasoning from correlation, but saying it "usually doesn't" indicate correlation is too bold, especially in experiments where confounders have been controlled for. [1] [1] (And don't get me started with the semi-clever types who ask if this or that variable has been controlled for when the study or the article about the study explicitly says it has. Save us all from halfwits trying to teach experienced researchers their business.)
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    https://www.gwern.net/Causality https://www.gwern.net/Causality provides more empirical background on my view.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      OK, so we'll go with "pedantry". We have both very strong evidence of correlation here, and occasional measures showing causal relationships in randomized studies -- Head Start, children randomized to different amounts of Kindergarten by individual city programs, etc. And sure, we have very poor data on what happens to affluent kids with involved parents, because this is a difficult population to study (haha, randomize my kids out to a half-day of K? Nothanks.) But, hey, you thought you could dunk on some bro on the internet, so.. high five!
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        I agree that my topmost comment was a little loose, but that wasn't targeted at any individual person. Having the relationship between correlation and observed to you is not a dunk (I hope). The preponderance of evidence I've been exposed to does not show a strong positive clinically significant effect of mainstream kindergarten, the one Head Start study you referenced notwithstanding. For example, here is one study that finds in the opposite direction. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0034654309359185?journalCode=rera https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/003465430935918... This is the sum of what I was trying to get across, in so many words. Sorry if the way I said it made you feel bad. I don't really want to cite studies at each other all day. I honestly don't have time for it and it's a little too amenable to cherry-picking. If there is a well-regarded summary of the literature that you're aware of, I'm happy to read it. But this really isn't that big of a deal to me, so please don't feel obligated to respond.
        mlyle 6y ago
        The cherry that you picked is a good example. You point to a study showing a small (but positive) marginal benefit of full-day kindergarten over half-day kindergarten to refute my original assertion that kindergarten in general is good? mkay. If you have academic library access, here's a Harvard meta-analysis of ECE (e.g. preschool/pre-K). 7 of the input studies were randomized to ECE vs. non-ECE. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X17737739 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X1773773...
  - astrange 6y ago
    > [1] (And don't get me started with the semi-clever types who ask if this or that variable has been controlled for when the study or the article about the study explicitly says it has. Save us all from halfwits trying to teach experienced researchers their business.) This is specifically called "shallow dismissal" in the HN rules (used to be "middle-brow dismissal"). Basically this is when you don't read the article and reply with something that sounds smart and applies in the general situation, but not here because the authors knew that too.
- mlyle 6y ago
  No. But we do have some evidence of causation-- e.g. children offered Head Start programs do better than children that were not. E.g. Ludwig and Miller (2007) showed a 3% increase in high school graduation rates and a 4% increase in college attendance in disadvantaged youth offered early education. That's a big difference for a treatment 15 years later.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    > . . . in disadvantaged youth offered early education. Head Start was a lot more than just early education. It was social services, nutrition, mental health services, and even the employment of some parents of the Head Start children. I should be clear that I do not mean to claim the total absence of benefits of kindergarten. I was exaggerating. The position I will stake is that I believe the benefits are likely very minor, even outside of COVID, and especially for affluent children.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      So, then, your intent in responding to my comment was just to be pedantic and snarky, and not to offer any actual information except to parrot the normal correlation != causation line? That was a good use of our time.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        Your one observing a correlation between kindergarten and success? No, I think your comment was likely to engender in the typical reader a belief that kindergarten was known to have a significant and positive causal effect (both statistical and clinical) on outcomes as a general rule. I don't believe this has been established. My intent in responding to your comment was to prevent that belief from wrongly being engendered in the minds of the readers.
  - spoonjim 6y ago
    Is there a possible confounder that the kids whose parents find out about these offerings and take their kids to them are more attentive overall?
lupire 6y ago
Normal kindergarten is correlated with achievement because most kids who don't go to kindergarten have higher-poverty low-health home lives. "Kindergarten" in many cases means something as simple as "human contact instead of bad TV" and "difficult nutrition for the day".
dominotw 6y ago
> Normal Kindergarten is correlated with better academic achievement later. I don't plan to "teach" my infant anything till he is 5 or 6. Is this a bad plan?
- justwalt 6y ago
  I can’t think of a single benefit of doing this. What made you come to this conclusion?
  - astrange 6y ago
    Maybe they think learning is pointless before episodic memories form? Which isn't true (you learn languages earlier than that) but I wonder what things it is true for.
- bombcar 6y ago
  You’re teaching him everyday (kids are naturally inquisitive and mimic), so I assume you mean structured learning. I’d say there’s not necessarily a downside to holding back on structured learning though structure and discipline elsewhere are good.
- stevekemp 6y ago
  You'll teach your child things, whether you realize it or not. You'll teach him to hold your hand when crossing roads, not running out in front of cars. You'll teach him the way you walk to the local shops and back, you'll teach him that kicking you in the crotch is bad, and that he should say "sorry" and not do it again. You'll probably hang out with neighbours and teach him how to share toys and not fight over them. All that kind of stuff matters, and is important. We started taking our child to kindergarden in Finland when he was 1, he'll be going there until he starts proper-school at 7. Mostly they play, draw, listen to stories, sing etc. It's not academic in any sense, but he still learns. Probably the most important thing he learns is to get dressed and be social with other children of a similar age. He has friends he likes, people he doesn't like, and often these change over a period of weeks/months. I fully expect he'll be able to read in one/two languages by the time he starts school. We read to him every night, and usually I stop and say the "fox in ?" and point to the word - half the time he'll say the right word, half the time he'll be like "I don't know that word". At first I though he'd memorized the dialog, but when I switch to a new book he's never seen before he still recognizes simple words like "cat", "dog", "hat", "car", etc. I don't think I'm teaching him to read, we rarely sit down and do anything for more than a few minutes, but he's picked up a lot of things. Like one day he said "That tram is 10", and now he knows about tram-routes within the city "This tram goes to the library", "This tram goes to the swimming pool". One thing I do when the weather is nice is say "We need to buy cake, where is the cake shop?" He says "go left", "go straight", "go right" and gives directions which we follow. Sometimes he's either confused, or perverse, and sends us in the wrong direction. But that's OK, nice days are worth wasting. But with all that normal stuff we're teaching him stuff, whether it is academic or not.

gnicholas 6y ago

> The study done by Harvard economist, Raj Chetty, and his colleagues suggests that because students who learn more in kindergarten can expect to see their earnings increase significantly, an excellent kindergarten teacher could be worth as much as $320,000 a year. from: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/07/28/128819707/the-kindergarten-experiment https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/07/28/128819707/the-...

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/raj-chetty-dummies https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/raj-chetty-dummies
- gnicholas 6y ago
  Thanks! I’d not heard of criticisms of his work but will look into it. Regardless, I agree with the bottom-line conclusion that his work won’t go away because it fits a narrative that many people would like to believe/advance.