哪间幼儿园能让娃顺利过度到小学呢?

小学不还是从头教起的吗？

小学会学拼音吗我不知道呀

你错了呵呵 惨痛的教训…

学拼音的但是photonics ABC什么的是没有学的。进了小学要有比较好的英文基础才能顺利衔接。英文课数学课都需要很好的阅读理解能力。

那应该怎么学呢阅读理解能力怎么提高呢

除了phonics, abc, 还有什么得教

不是k1 k2 会把小一的内容全部学完吗？小梅兰竹菊

我家小朋友啥补习都没去过，当然本身语言能力也不好，所以进了小学就很悲剧了[…]。英文的阅读必须是极差，然而小朋友最喜欢的数学也很悲剧，因为坡小学的数学强调的不是加减乘除这些基础。而是常常出现很多英文描述题，我家娃娃基本最开始半年多数题目看不懂不理解，只能看到数字随便做个加法或减法。搞得小朋友对数学也产生了恐惧。。。家属表示抗议，这数学根本就是在考英文阅读理解好不好。。。

所以让我从新再来一次的话，英文phonics必须是从很小就丢去学，让他们有独立阅读能力。培养良好的阅读习惯，图书馆要常去。读的多了，自然理解能力也上去了。之后的数学科学都可以轻松应对。

我感觉mindchamp不错好像是坡县最和小学接轨的幼儿园之一了。当时去参观说到k2单词能力可能相当于小学2-3年级了

马上k2了感觉上了一个假mindchamp。。。
还小学二三年级呢，简单的书都读不下来
这么看的话完全看孩子个人
不要迷信学校

神奇啊我当时参观的时候老师说k1就要求达到小学一年级水平。难道我参观了一个假的mindchamps？

这么厉害啊怎么我得到的信息是mindchamp只是教个英文

能把个英文教的棒棒哒就很好了。

我也愁我家的英文，看不懂题目啥都白搭

看得好恐慌啊我还打算继续给娃放羊呢……

不是说如果都教会了到时候娃上课该容易走神儿了吗？55556

可以去上那个kumon我这里小孩子也是k 2就开始去上课了。。。。不懂学什么就是了

哎 唯娘本着enjoy childhood的本意但是现在看到小朋友这么suffer 不知道是不是做错了…… 现在的竞争好激烈！

借帖问一下Mindchamps Chinese pre-school怎么样？Mindchamp华文幼儿园

Early Academic Training Produces Long-Term Harmhttps://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201505/early-academic-training-produces-long-term-harm

Many preschool and kindergarten teachers have told me that they are extremely upset—some to the point of being ready to resign—by the increased pressure on them to teach academic skills to little children and regularly test them on such skills. They can see firsthand the unhappiness generated, and they suspect that the children would be learning much more useful lessons through playing, exploring, and socializing, as they did in traditional nursery schools and kindergartens. Their suspicions are well validated by research studies.

A number of well-controlled studies have compared the effects of academically oriented early education classrooms with those of play-based classrooms (some of which are reviewed here, in an article by Nancy Carlsson-Paige, Geralyn McLaughlin,and Joan Almon).[1] The results are quite consistent from study to study: Early academic training somewhat increases children’s immediate scores on the specific tests that the training is aimed at (no surprise), but these initial gains wash out within 1 to 3 years and, at least in some studies, are eventually reversed. Perhaps more tragic than the lack of long-term academic advantage of early academic instruction is evidence that such instruction can produce long-term harm, especially in the realms of social and emotional development.

A Study in Germany that Changed Educational Policy There

For example, in the 1970s, the German government sponsored a large-scale comparison in which the graduates of 50 play-based kindergartens were compared, over time, with the graduates of 50 academic direct-instruction-based kindergartens.[2] Despite the initial academic gains of direct instruction, by grade four the children from the direct-instruction kindergartens performed significantly worse than those from the play-based kindergartens on every measure that was used. In particular, they were less advanced in reading and mathematics and less well adjusted socially and emotionally. At the time of the study, Germany was gradually making a switch from traditional play-based kindergartens to academic ones. At least partly as a result of the study, Germany reversed that trend; they went back to play-based kindergartens. Apparently, German educational authorities, at least at that time, unlike American authorities today, actually paid attention to educational research and used it to inform educational practice.

A Large-Scale Study of Children from Poverty in the United States

Similar studies in the United States have produced comparable results. One study, directed by Rebecca Marcon, focused on mostly African American children from high-poverty families.[3] As expected, she found—in her sample of 343 students--that those who attended preschools centered on academic training showed initial academic advantages over those who attended play-based preschools; but, by the end of fourth grade, these initial advantages were reversed: The children from the play-based preschools were now performing better, getting significantly higher school grades, than were those from the academic preschools, This study included no assessment of social and emotional development.

An Experiment in Which Children from Poverty Were Followed up to Age 23

In a well-controlled experiment, begun by David Weikart and his colleagues in 1967, sixty eight high-poverty children living in Ypsilanti, Michigan, were assigned to one of three types of nursery schools: Traditional (play-based), High/Scope (which was like the traditional but involved more adult guidance), and Direct Instruction (where the focus was on teaching reading, writing, and math, using worksheets and tests). The assignment was done in a semi-random way, designed to ensure that the three groups were initially matched on all available measures. In addition to the daily preschool experiences, the experiment also included a home visit every two weeks, aimed at instructing parents in how to help their children. These visits focused on the same sorts of methods as did the preschool classrooms. Thus, home visits from the Traditional classrooms focused on the value of play and socialization while those from the Direct-Instruction classrooms focused on academic skills, worksheets, and the like.

The initial results of this experiment were similar to those of other such studies. Those in the direct-instruction group showed early academic gains, which soon vanished. This study, however, also included follow-up research when the participants were 15 years old and again when they were 23 years old. At these ages there were no significant differences among the groups in academic achievement, but large, significant differences in social and emotional characteristics.

By age 15 those in the Direct Instruction group had committed, on average, more than twice as many “acts of misconduct” than had those in the other two groups. At age 23, as young adults, the differences were even more dramatic. Those in the Direct Instruction group had more instances of friction with other people, were more likely to have shown evidence of emotional impairment, were less likely to be married and living with their spouse, and were far more likely to have committed a crime than were those in the other two groups. In fact, by age 23, 39% of those in the Direct Instruction group had felony arrest records compared to an average of 13.5% in the other two groups; and 19% of the Direct Instruction group had been cited for assault with a dangerous weapon compared with 0% in the other two groups.[4]

What might account for such dramatic long-term effects of type of preschool attended? One possibility is that the initial school experience sets the stage for later behavior. Those in classrooms where they learned to plan their own activities, to play with others, and to negotiate differences may have developed lifelong patterns of personal responsibility and pro-social behavior that served them well throughout their childhood and early adulthood. Those in classrooms that emphasized academic performance may have developed lifelong patterns aimed at achievement, and getting ahead, which—especially in the context of poverty—could lead to friction with others and even to crime (as a misguided means of getting ahead).

I suspect that the biweekly home visits played a meaningful role. The parents of those in the classrooms that focused on play, socialization, and student initiative may have developed parenting styles that continued to reinforce those values and skills as the children were growing up, and the parents of those in the academic training group may have developed parenting styles more focused on personal achievement (narrowly defined) and self-centered values—values that did not bode well for real-world success.

What has been your experience with early education, as a parent or a teacher? What effects have you seen of early academic training, or, conversely, of experience in traditional play-based preschools and kindergartens? This blog is a forum for discussion, and your views and knowledge are valued and taken seriously, by me and by other readers. Make your thoughts known in the comments section below. As always, I prefer if you post your comments and questions here rather than send them to me by private email. By putting them here, you share with other readers, not just with me. I read all comments and try to respond to all serious questions. Of course, if you have something to say that applies only to you and me, then send me an email.

看着好可怕现在上N1,完全什么都没有学，学校连ABC都不教啊，就唱唱歌玩一玩，顿时压力好大

N1就是要学习玩的,学习玩得开心,学习和朋友一起玩

Mindchamps 不错当然还是因人而异的。两娃都在那，大娃k2比较明显，老师抓得挺紧的，回家可以不用任何学习方面的补习，家里孩子喜欢的话可以写写题看看书，感觉一页几行字的英文书读的溜溜的，自己也会英文造句。偶尔带个英文应用题回来，他自己看着题目就会算。中文抓得也挺紧，所有拼音都会了，简单华文书连猜带蒙的也能看，当然比英文还是稍微差点，不过那天我随便问了下，发现他所有拼音都会了也是挺吃惊的。总体来说觉得这学校学习方面算省心的。

phonics abc，拼音都教啊。家有小一娃路过。

谢谢美妈这些应用题和拼音之类的都是k2才给的吗？

觉得little school house 是很好的学校去参观过，除了觉得学费贵，其它都很好。
与其换学校，我觉得让小孩周末参加一些补习，可能更好。
幼儿园，可以给小孩完整的系统的幼儿教育。
周末补习，让小孩在某些方面（主要是英语）有提高。同时也让他适应小学时的补习。

哎 看来我家上的是假小学

我觉得让小朋友喜欢阅读最重要根据他的能力，看看他喜欢的书就好了。有没有看明白其实都不重要。。
拼音什么的慢慢就会了

我家N2的娃，只给上了I can read一年前来的新加坡，现在英文好些了，但是家里语言环境是中文，所以英文还是有待提高~~~

谢谢提醒我女儿挺喜欢看书的，基本是早上一睁眼看，晚上睡觉前看，上厕所也不放过。。。我好奇啥书这么好看，拿来一看，"脑筋急转弯"...

刚报名mindchamps就为孩子能很好的衔接小学你们是从PG就开始在mindchamps读么？听说它们是很注重阅读能力的，如果孩子表现不佳，老师不会给孩子施压而是给家长建议，相当于给家长压力去关注孩子，你们家小朋友阅读能力不够老师有主动联系你么？

小学教材难道不是一样的么

理论都是这么说的，但没有几个家长有那个底气/勇气啊没办法在自己娃身上试验小学前啥都不知道，小四的时候会不会翻盘。。。

最佳衔接小学的幼儿园

难道不是设在小学里面的教育部幼儿园？

https://www.moe.gov.sg/microsites/moekindergarten/assets/pdf/mk-chinese-brochure-2017.pdf

目测是名校，所以默认入学的孩子这些都会了或者课外都学了

翻盘除了小四，还有很多很多机会

人生是马拉松，小四进了天才班，将来也有可能在市镇理事会打工

看来是后者可惜

Little Skool House就是硬件设施很好我们在读的这间，感觉娃也没学到什么英文，没有外教，班上1个马来老师+华人+中国老师，娃比较粘中国老师，所以讲中文比较多，跟班上的其他种族学生除了抢东西基本没其它互动，还没在家看YouTube学的英文多…

有在British Countil读pre-school的宝宝吗？

哪间幼儿园能让娃顺利过度到小学呢?娃明年k2,想给娃找个能顺利过度到小学的幼儿园，现在上little skool house基本什么都不教，每天以讲故事为主。求推荐一个不需要额外补习就能顺利过度到小学的幼儿园，比如系统学习拼音数学这样的
---
该帖荣获当日十大第4，奖励楼主12分以及18狮城帮币，时间：2017-09-04 22:00:03。
---
该帖荣获当日十大第9，奖励楼主2分以及3狮城帮币，时间：2017-09-05 22:00:04。