This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I am inclined to delete the following two sentences from the article:
As a result of the report, 6.5 years became the standardized age across the country for entry into first grade.[dubious – discuss] The results have proven controversial, particularly since Winnetka is a high-income community, but the 6.5 year standard is still largely in place.
It does not appear to be true that a 6.5 year standard for admission to first grade is currently in place in the United States. A quick Google search will demonstrate that 6 years of age (usually as of August or September of the admission year) is standard in most states. The source cited for this claim does not strike me (and at least one other editor) as authoritative or neutral. Deleting these two sentences will still leave in place the idea that the study was influential in promoting the idea of evaluating students for reading readiness. I am not going to delete these sentences right now, because they are under discussion as the basis for a DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Carleton Washburne. --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be that the paper cited as a source for those statements was over-generalizing in order to push a point of view. (Washburne actually seems to have believed that each child should learn at their own pace.) However, it appears that there is some truth to the notion that the Winnetka study influenced notions about the proper chronological age for a child to start school. Google Search results suggest that articles at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1000490 and http://www.jstor.org/stable/999666 (I can't access them past the first page) may support that idea. There might be a basis for a sentence like "The report has been identified as having led to establishment of standards on the chronological age for children to enter first grade." --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. The first of them actually seems to undercut this claim, saying that minimum chronological ages for school entrance were being set as early as 1843, and that the age of 6 was set as the standard in 1909 - decades before the Washburne study. Maybe the Washburne study led impetus to the idea by making it appear to be evidence-based, but "6 years old to enter first grade" was certainly not a new idea - and I can't find anything anywhere recommending 6.5 years. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the problematic sentences. --Orlady (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)