![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More articles :)
Feb. 2nd, 2012 07:51 pm
Fun and Play Are Key to Survival for Bears, Dogs, Humans, Birds and Maybe Even Ants
New Playgrounds Are Safe—and That's Why Nobody Uses The
I've said it before and I'll say it again: playgrounds are designed differently than they were when we were young, and some of that is safety but a lot of it is a totally different idea of how the space should be used. Everybody always mentions "No more seesaws!" as their big bugaboo, but I'm not convinced that seesaws are less common simply for safety reasons. Rather, I suspect they're less common because they take up a lot of space, can really only be used in one or two ways (which don't as easily lend themselves to imaginative play as some newer concepts do, although kids always find a way), and can only be used by a very few children at a time. Safety is probably part of it, but I doubt it's all of it. (Of course, that doesn't mean that boring, uninspiring but "safe" playgrounds using older concepts of isolated structures don't exist. Of course they do. But there were boring playgrounds 50 years ago as well. And the children walked uphill in the snow both ways to play there, in the boring playgrounds, and they liked them anyway, right?)
And finally, a nice long clip about an outdoor "kindergarten" (in the more European sense of "preschool through age 5" rather than in the more American sense of "five year olds' class") in Norway. Many of the comments are in reply to some inane woman who is just terrified at seeing a knife in a 5 year old's hand or watching a small child light a match with guidance and a grown-up right there supervising.
"What could have happened!" Well, I suppose the match could have dropped into the child's clothing and he'd've had to stop drop and roll, as we tell them in America. But nothing did happen, and it's far better to teach a child how to light a fire safely than to risk that they'll get into the matches one day and NOT light a fire safely. "It's so scary seeing a five year old holding a knife!" It's so scary seeing a five year old who is unable to cut her own food at lunchtime. Hell, Ana went to open a can of tuna the other day and, as she didn't immediately see the can opener, hacked at it with a very dull kitchen knife (thank god, because when I heard this I panicked that she'd ruined one of my newly-bought ceramic ones!) until it was open. No, I'm not joking. It was a little frightening to see the can carnage after the fact. (She's very self-sufficient. Of course, she could've saved a lot of effort by simply asking where we'd put the can opener....)
(Also, yes, I know that for most cutting needs sharp knives are much safer than dull ones. I sometimes see people online saying they let their small children cut things "with butter knives". Please don't do this. If your child is old enough to cut anything harder than play-dough, give them a real knife. They're less likely to cut themselves, and if they DO cut themselves they'll do a lot less damage. Trust me. As a clumsy person, I know!
New Playgrounds Are Safe—and That's Why Nobody Uses The
I've said it before and I'll say it again: playgrounds are designed differently than they were when we were young, and some of that is safety but a lot of it is a totally different idea of how the space should be used. Everybody always mentions "No more seesaws!" as their big bugaboo, but I'm not convinced that seesaws are less common simply for safety reasons. Rather, I suspect they're less common because they take up a lot of space, can really only be used in one or two ways (which don't as easily lend themselves to imaginative play as some newer concepts do, although kids always find a way), and can only be used by a very few children at a time. Safety is probably part of it, but I doubt it's all of it. (Of course, that doesn't mean that boring, uninspiring but "safe" playgrounds using older concepts of isolated structures don't exist. Of course they do. But there were boring playgrounds 50 years ago as well. And the children walked uphill in the snow both ways to play there, in the boring playgrounds, and they liked them anyway, right?)
And finally, a nice long clip about an outdoor "kindergarten" (in the more European sense of "preschool through age 5" rather than in the more American sense of "five year olds' class") in Norway. Many of the comments are in reply to some inane woman who is just terrified at seeing a knife in a 5 year old's hand or watching a small child light a match with guidance and a grown-up right there supervising.
"What could have happened!" Well, I suppose the match could have dropped into the child's clothing and he'd've had to stop drop and roll, as we tell them in America. But nothing did happen, and it's far better to teach a child how to light a fire safely than to risk that they'll get into the matches one day and NOT light a fire safely. "It's so scary seeing a five year old holding a knife!" It's so scary seeing a five year old who is unable to cut her own food at lunchtime. Hell, Ana went to open a can of tuna the other day and, as she didn't immediately see the can opener, hacked at it with a very dull kitchen knife (thank god, because when I heard this I panicked that she'd ruined one of my newly-bought ceramic ones!) until it was open. No, I'm not joking. It was a little frightening to see the can carnage after the fact. (She's very self-sufficient. Of course, she could've saved a lot of effort by simply asking where we'd put the can opener....)
(Also, yes, I know that for most cutting needs sharp knives are much safer than dull ones. I sometimes see people online saying they let their small children cut things "with butter knives". Please don't do this. If your child is old enough to cut anything harder than play-dough, give them a real knife. They're less likely to cut themselves, and if they DO cut themselves they'll do a lot less damage. Trust me. As a clumsy person, I know!
It never rains but it pours, right?
Oct. 26th, 2011 12:33 pmNow that Evangeline is reading harder books, I'm noticing something interesting, and I don't know what to make of it.
Evangeline rarely reverses letters in a word. Sometimes she'll write "tow" for "two" or "on/no" for "no/on", and she does have trouble with "saw/was", but in general, what she sees is what she reads, and if she gets it wrong she at least tends to get the first sounds right (unless she turns to guessing, and then she goes on meaning, making it easy to tell she guessed!)
Edit: That is, she rarely reverses when reading. She does sometimes, as I noted below and above, do it when spelling... but it's hard to tell sometimes what exactly is going on.
However, I'm noticing that she often switches the order of words. So if the sentence reads "Am I going outside?" she will very often automatically switch it to say "I am going outside", possibly because statements are more common than questions. And if you point it out, she'll repeat the error until you literally break up the sentence for her.
She also has trouble reading words out of context. This is so bad that her teacher thinks she's not nearly as good a reader as she is, probably, I realize, because she was assessed by having her read words off a chart, and Evangeline doesn't really do that. I mean, she can, but it doesn't seem easy for her. She doesn't need pictures, but she needs the words to be in sentences to read them.
Now, here's what I know. I know dyslexia runs in her dad's family. I know that learning disabilities can be very well hidden by effective coping strategies - especially by bright children. And I know Eva sometimes, in writing, reverses the order of letters (carefully sounding out "you" but writing "uoy", probably because she started off saying the word and then writing the letter that is called yoo!) and their shapes (normal at this age to write your 5s backwards or to confuse your bs and ds). But I've never yet in my life heard of dyslexics, or anybody, switching the order of words in a sentence! Reversing the order of letters or jumbling up the sounds, I've heard of that. But shifting around words in a sentence to make a new sentence, and not even realizing it? That's new to me.
Am I jumping the gun here and worrying about nothing? Or am I on the right track here?
Evangeline rarely reverses letters in a word. Sometimes she'll write "tow" for "two" or "on/no" for "no/on", and she does have trouble with "saw/was", but in general, what she sees is what she reads, and if she gets it wrong she at least tends to get the first sounds right (unless she turns to guessing, and then she goes on meaning, making it easy to tell she guessed!)
Edit: That is, she rarely reverses when reading. She does sometimes, as I noted below and above, do it when spelling... but it's hard to tell sometimes what exactly is going on.
However, I'm noticing that she often switches the order of words. So if the sentence reads "Am I going outside?" she will very often automatically switch it to say "I am going outside", possibly because statements are more common than questions. And if you point it out, she'll repeat the error until you literally break up the sentence for her.
She also has trouble reading words out of context. This is so bad that her teacher thinks she's not nearly as good a reader as she is, probably, I realize, because she was assessed by having her read words off a chart, and Evangeline doesn't really do that. I mean, she can, but it doesn't seem easy for her. She doesn't need pictures, but she needs the words to be in sentences to read them.
Now, here's what I know. I know dyslexia runs in her dad's family. I know that learning disabilities can be very well hidden by effective coping strategies - especially by bright children. And I know Eva sometimes, in writing, reverses the order of letters (carefully sounding out "you" but writing "uoy", probably because she started off saying the word and then writing the letter that is called yoo!) and their shapes (normal at this age to write your 5s backwards or to confuse your bs and ds). But I've never yet in my life heard of dyslexics, or anybody, switching the order of words in a sentence! Reversing the order of letters or jumbling up the sounds, I've heard of that. But shifting around words in a sentence to make a new sentence, and not even realizing it? That's new to me.
Am I jumping the gun here and worrying about nothing? Or am I on the right track here?
More articles :)
Mar. 16th, 2010 03:36 pmOne on the "obesity hunger paradox
( Read more... )
A dispute among (some?) Christians on using the Koran to convert Muslims
( Read more... )
An article on that massively bad storm this weekend. I count at least six downed trees just between here and the school! (I think that's the final count, at least.)
( Read more... )
An article on the proposal to allow beekeepers to keep bees in the city
( Read more... )
An article about how most people actually suck at telling if somebody is lying
Which might be because they're not so great at understanding what other people are thinking after all.
Oh, and one on "the social hierarchy of preschoolers"
( Read more... )
A dispute among (some?) Christians on using the Koran to convert Muslims
( Read more... )
An article on that massively bad storm this weekend. I count at least six downed trees just between here and the school! (I think that's the final count, at least.)
( Read more... )
An article on the proposal to allow beekeepers to keep bees in the city
( Read more... )
An article about how most people actually suck at telling if somebody is lying
Which might be because they're not so great at understanding what other people are thinking after all.
Oh, and one on "the social hierarchy of preschoolers"
Tags:
Wow. Just... wow
Feb. 3rd, 2010 02:10 am
Now, Ana has been reading for a while. I don't want to brag, but she routinely reads picture books harder than her officially-tested-at "J" level (which is apparently a second grade reading level... although this week I think they retested them because now she's bringing home "L" books) at home.
And when we went to The Big Library (the one with the lions) two weeks ago (our own local library, the St. George Library* has been undergoing a lot of renovations and their children's room has been relocated to the basement with a corresponding reduction in the available books) she spent an hour just picking out books and reading them while I browsed. Silently, no less! (Usually, when I see her take out a book to read I tell her to read it to her sister so as to kill two birds with one stone there... and then I can read to ME! So I had no idea she could read to herself.)
Well, since Ana reads picture books, I often read chapter books with her.
Of course, one thing most of my old chapter books have in common is the race of their protagonists. They were older books (Half Magic) predating the Civil Rights movement even when I was a child, or they're not yet THAT old (Ramona, mostly, though that's an odd case) but still people weren't thinking as inclusively as I'd like. (And you know, I noticed this even as a kid, to an extent.) Or they do feature non-white protagonists, but they're really YA or older kidlit, or they're "issues" books, or they're historical or they're both historical AND issues.
So I saw this book, it's about a 3rd grader (so, close to her reading level), and it has a black girl as the protagonist. And it's a series, so probably fluff instead of serious? Okay, let's see....
I barely had brought it in the house when Ana snatched it from my hand. She loves reading, likes books, but she didn't get that excited when I found Howliday Inn just in time for her mom to finish Bunnicula with them!
So I gave it to her, thinking that since she's never read her own chapter book before and it is probably about a grade level above her reading level (given that it says RL 3 at the back) that it'd be too hard for her and we'd read it together. (I wasn't looking forward to it, since it's every bit as scintillating as Baby-sitter's Little Sister, but I enjoyed those books when I was 6.)
No, instead she's spent the past day patiently struggling up to page 42 in this book. By herself. I *know* it's too hard for her, but I can't stop her, can I? No, no, I can't. Reading a book a little too hard for her is good, anyway.
But I can't believe this is the same girl who normally would give up and sulk when told that "Booker boys" is not said "Booger boys". (She's a great kid, but I don't think she likes being wrong much. I say "if you don't like being wrong you should strive to be right", but she sometimes thinks that it's "if you don't try, you can't fail" instead.)
And when we went to The Big Library (the one with the lions) two weeks ago (our own local library, the St. George Library* has been undergoing a lot of renovations and their children's room has been relocated to the basement with a corresponding reduction in the available books) she spent an hour just picking out books and reading them while I browsed. Silently, no less! (Usually, when I see her take out a book to read I tell her to read it to her sister so as to kill two birds with one stone there... and then I can read to ME! So I had no idea she could read to herself.)
Well, since Ana reads picture books, I often read chapter books with her.
Of course, one thing most of my old chapter books have in common is the race of their protagonists. They were older books (Half Magic) predating the Civil Rights movement even when I was a child, or they're not yet THAT old (Ramona, mostly, though that's an odd case) but still people weren't thinking as inclusively as I'd like. (And you know, I noticed this even as a kid, to an extent.) Or they do feature non-white protagonists, but they're really YA or older kidlit, or they're "issues" books, or they're historical or they're both historical AND issues.
So I saw this book, it's about a 3rd grader (so, close to her reading level), and it has a black girl as the protagonist. And it's a series, so probably fluff instead of serious? Okay, let's see....
I barely had brought it in the house when Ana snatched it from my hand. She loves reading, likes books, but she didn't get that excited when I found Howliday Inn just in time for her mom to finish Bunnicula with them!
So I gave it to her, thinking that since she's never read her own chapter book before and it is probably about a grade level above her reading level (given that it says RL 3 at the back) that it'd be too hard for her and we'd read it together. (I wasn't looking forward to it, since it's every bit as scintillating as Baby-sitter's Little Sister, but I enjoyed those books when I was 6.)
No, instead she's spent the past day patiently struggling up to page 42 in this book. By herself. I *know* it's too hard for her, but I can't stop her, can I? No, no, I can't. Reading a book a little too hard for her is good, anyway.
But I can't believe this is the same girl who normally would give up and sulk when told that "Booker boys" is not said "Booger boys". (She's a great kid, but I don't think she likes being wrong much. I say "if you don't like being wrong you should strive to be right", but she sometimes thinks that it's "if you don't try, you can't fail" instead.)
I need help....
Dec. 29th, 2009 10:59 am
Ana is reading at somewhere above a "J" level. J seems to mean "A Porcupine Named Fluffy", which I just outright bought her for Christmas because she kept taking it out for school and I thought she should be fair to the other children.
Last year she was among the best readers in her class, reading at a "G" level. Children reading above an "F" level were to write five sentences in their reading log over the summer.
The teachers judge what level a book is and write the letter with a sharpie on the cover. It's not just this school, I've bought used books that clearly come from other schools that have the same system.
How do I know what level a book is? What's a reasonable range of level for first grade when they started teaching reading in kindergarten? I want to get (more) books for the classroom as a gift, but I want to get books that are most useful, not ones that will be too hard or too easy for most children most of the year. How is this determined?
Help? Please?
Last year she was among the best readers in her class, reading at a "G" level. Children reading above an "F" level were to write five sentences in their reading log over the summer.
The teachers judge what level a book is and write the letter with a sharpie on the cover. It's not just this school, I've bought used books that clearly come from other schools that have the same system.
How do I know what level a book is? What's a reasonable range of level for first grade when they started teaching reading in kindergarten? I want to get (more) books for the classroom as a gift, but I want to get books that are most useful, not ones that will be too hard or too easy for most children most of the year. How is this determined?
Help? Please?
Every other comment to the article is "Montessori does this, duh!", with the occasional "Well, duh, that's how we do it in MY country", so I don't know if the article is badly written or if we're so far out of step with the rest of the world. Being out of step might not be a bad thing either if it's ultimately better for the kids.
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
Here's one on the intelligence of fishies
Now, we all hear a lot about goldfish. People get goldfish for their kids because "they're easy to take care of, and die soon anyway". They put them in bare bowls because "well, they don't need more, and they die soon anyway, and they're not that bright". They don't do anything about stimulation because "well, they're not that bright, and they die soon anyway". These statements would be troubling, except that the premises are totally flawed to begin with! When properly cared for, goldfish live decades - so all those fish that "died soon anyway" did so because they were killed by incompetent owners. And given that you can teach a goldfish to do a variety of tricks, I'm not so sure they're as unintelligent as all that. It's cruelty to have an animal and not give it any form of stimulation at all, it's like locking them in solitary for their whole life!
( Read more... )
Two articles on two different kindergartens.
One on a charter school that "justifies" its trip to the farm by calling it "test prep".
Some of the comments are disgusting, blaming parents for kids not going "to the zoo". When are they supposed to go to the zoo? On a weekday, when it closes at 5? On the weekend, when it costs $12 per person and is crowded besides and you have to do your shopping and your cleaning and visit family and go to church? Uncool, guys.
( Read more... )
And one about an absurdly expensive private school for gifted kids
( Read more... )
An article on zero waste facilities and communities
( Read more... )
And finally, one on problems faced by African immigrants in the Bronx
( Read more... )
Now, we all hear a lot about goldfish. People get goldfish for their kids because "they're easy to take care of, and die soon anyway". They put them in bare bowls because "well, they don't need more, and they die soon anyway, and they're not that bright". They don't do anything about stimulation because "well, they're not that bright, and they die soon anyway". These statements would be troubling, except that the premises are totally flawed to begin with! When properly cared for, goldfish live decades - so all those fish that "died soon anyway" did so because they were killed by incompetent owners. And given that you can teach a goldfish to do a variety of tricks, I'm not so sure they're as unintelligent as all that. It's cruelty to have an animal and not give it any form of stimulation at all, it's like locking them in solitary for their whole life!
( Read more... )
Two articles on two different kindergartens.
One on a charter school that "justifies" its trip to the farm by calling it "test prep".
Some of the comments are disgusting, blaming parents for kids not going "to the zoo". When are they supposed to go to the zoo? On a weekday, when it closes at 5? On the weekend, when it costs $12 per person and is crowded besides and you have to do your shopping and your cleaning and visit family and go to church? Uncool, guys.
( Read more... )
And one about an absurdly expensive private school for gifted kids
( Read more... )
An article on zero waste facilities and communities
( Read more... )
And finally, one on problems faced by African immigrants in the Bronx
( Read more... )
An article on kindergarten
Sep. 15th, 2009 11:50 amClicky
In the comments, the very first comment is of the sort that really gets me - somebody implying that the only learning that counts as "learning" is the sort you do sitting in a chair that you can be tested on. Tying your shoes isn't learning, I suppose. Dealing with complex social situations isn't learning. Only math and reading are learning - and probably only if taught the way she thinks of as appropriate. Bah.
( Read more... )
Incidentally, on the subject of homework - Ten minutes, per grade, per night. The National PTA and the National Education Association can be assumed to know something on this subject.
In the comments, the very first comment is of the sort that really gets me - somebody implying that the only learning that counts as "learning" is the sort you do sitting in a chair that you can be tested on. Tying your shoes isn't learning, I suppose. Dealing with complex social situations isn't learning. Only math and reading are learning - and probably only if taught the way she thinks of as appropriate. Bah.
( Read more... )
Incidentally, on the subject of homework - Ten minutes, per grade, per night. The National PTA and the National Education Association can be assumed to know something on this subject.
Two more random links
Aug. 17th, 2009 11:08 amOne on a personal experience of Forest Kindergartens, a must-read
One on racism and anger and "Not Being a Racist".
Hey, I'm not a racist* but I think that I don't need to use profanity and petty indignation to express that fact. (This may be the only way to end "I'm not a racist" without sounding like a twit, come to think....)
*At least I don't think I am, and consciously figure the whole thing makes no sense. And I do hope people will smack me (metaphorically) should I ever need it.
One on racism and anger and "Not Being a Racist".
Hey, I'm not a racist* but I think that I don't need to use profanity and petty indignation to express that fact. (This may be the only way to end "I'm not a racist" without sounding like a twit, come to think....)
*At least I don't think I am, and consciously figure the whole thing makes no sense. And I do hope people will smack me (metaphorically) should I ever need it.
And a few longer articles
May. 3rd, 2009 03:05 pmOne older one about an adventure-y playground on 116th street
( Read more... )
Another older one on accessible playgrounds
( Read more... )
A depressing one on modern kindergarten
( Read more... )
One on increased class size in NYC
( Read more... )
One on waiting lists for kindergarten. This isn't, despite the article, just limited to Manhattan - and remember that when time comes to go to first grade, the seats *first* go to those who are already in kindergarten in the same school.
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
Another older one on accessible playgrounds
( Read more... )
A depressing one on modern kindergarten
( Read more... )
One on increased class size in NYC
( Read more... )
One on waiting lists for kindergarten. This isn't, despite the article, just limited to Manhattan - and remember that when time comes to go to first grade, the seats *first* go to those who are already in kindergarten in the same school.
( Read more... )
And a few more articles
May. 3rd, 2009 03:04 pmOne older one about an adventure-y playground on 116th street
( Read more... )
Another older one on accessible playgrounds
( Read more... )
A depressing one on modern kindergarten
( Read more... )
One on increased class size in NYC
( Read more... )
One on waiting lists for kindergarten. This isn't, despite the article, just limited to Manhattan - and remember that when time comes to go to first grade, the seats *first* go to those who are already in kindergarten in the same school.
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
Another older one on accessible playgrounds
( Read more... )
A depressing one on modern kindergarten
( Read more... )
One on increased class size in NYC
( Read more... )
One on waiting lists for kindergarten. This isn't, despite the article, just limited to Manhattan - and remember that when time comes to go to first grade, the seats *first* go to those who are already in kindergarten in the same school.
( Read more... )
