> they'd point out that the system could be fixed by getting rid of Kindergarten
As some who was not taught the alphabet by either parent but instead by the school starting in Kindergarten I hope you aren't serious. The only place I learned to read was in school.
The link is talking about formal vs play-based learning, which is a methodological question that, in the case of reading skills, is mostly orthogonal to what's being learned.
The link mentions learning through play, not "deliberate" play-based learning as I read it. Play is available at any daycare, at home, with grandparents etc.
The assertion was kindergarten was valuable because it taught reading. I was pointing out that if reading was premature, then kindergarten had no educational value.
No, the link never claims that "[learning to read] was pre-mature". In the developmental literature, "play" is a collection of pedagogical approaches and is not synonymous with what we'd call play time at a typical child care.
You fundamentally misunderstand the article. The article isn't advocating not teaching reading. It's advocating a play-based pedagogy for teaching reading.
> Play is available at any daycare, at home, with grandparents etc.
While this is true, that's not the "play" that the article is referring to. Not all "play" has equal educational value; playing pong all day is different from constructing silly stories based on books with Grandma during reading time.
So while this is in principle true, the reality is that educational play is a lot less accessible than your characterization implies.
"An extended period of high quality, play-based pre-school education was of particular advantage to children from disadvantaged households" doesn't describe the typical daycare.
Again, the approach is not "no education". The approach is "play-based pre-school education"
> then kindergarten had no educational value.
Similarly, the article never claims that pre-school/Kindergarten has negative educational value. It claims that formal educational settings focused on instruction sometimes have negative educational value. (Which, BTW, can be found in the involved parent's home as easily as in the typical public classroom.)
The idea that this study implies we should just have kids play "kick the can" all day until first grade is a serious and dangerous mis-reading.
Kids should be learning to read during the Kindergarten age, and prior. This study does not refute that assertion. Rather, it makes a point about which pedagogical approaches are most effective at achieving that goal. Those approaches -- both good and bad -- could be implemented in a day care, but a grandparent, or in a Kindergarten classroom.
The first (couple of) year(s) children enter formal education is primarily an assessment period to determine where they're at developmentally, behaviorally, and educationally.
As some who was not taught the alphabet by either parent but instead by the school starting in Kindergarten I hope you aren't serious. The only place I learned to read was in school.