I've been told that I tend to give diplomatic answers, and I'm pretty sure this would count as one.
First of all, the examples that Malcolm Gladwell gave of accumulative advantage applied to sports, not education. In the article by Sam Wang and Sandra Aadmodt the examples given applied to education but not sports. However, sports is briefly mentioned in Wang and Aadmodt's article, and it supports Gladwell on accumulative advantage in athletics. "As sports-minded parents know, physical maturity allows older children to perform better. Coaches often mistake this ... for natural aptitude and respond by giving the older children ... more opportunities to improve their skills."
I would have to say that I completely agree with Malcolm Gladwell about this in sports, however I disagree with him when it comes to school. My opinion isn't only influenced by the book and article, it also comes from personal experience.
I've had peers which were put into school a year late, and it didn't seem to help. Some children assumed they were held back, I distinctly remember a boy telling my friend "Oh, you were too stupid to start school, right? The school didn't want you." What I'm saying is that delaying school admission also causes bullying. Red-shirted children may be more mature starting school, but the other children aren't.
I agree with several points in the Kindergarten Debate article, including that actually being younger is a benefit. I've always been one of the youngest and smallest, but that made me want to do just as well as the older bigger kids. I wanted to show that size and age don't have to factor into smarts, and I know several other people like this.
So, to sum up, I agree a little with both readings.
No comments:
Post a Comment