preschool and playgroups as job training centers?

[boongirl]

Check out this article from the Seattle P-I newspaper.


I find several items in this article disturbing.

1. Stay-at-home toddlers learn plenty from family and friends, but they may not understand how to line up, sit in a circle or share toys, all de rigueur skills for today's kindergarteners.

To help these kids avoid being labeled as "problems," or being sent to unnecessary special-education classes, play-groups are popping up around Seattle to ease the children's move into organized education.

2. These kids may mingle with others who started formal learning exercises as young as 2.

3. Spending $1 on top-quality programs for disadvantaged toddlers can return $1.26 to $17 in economic benefits, according to a RAND Corp. study released in January.

What is wrong with this country that we think we have to start training our toddlers in preparation for job earnings later in life? Parents are going to read this article and get stressed out about having their toddler in the right playgroup so that they can start "formal learning exercises." It used to be that formal education started at kindergarten because that was the time kids were ready to start learning. Kindergarten was about learning your ABCs, sitting together, beginning math skills, songs that taught concepts, etc. Now we are supposed to start that when kids are 2!! This article is written as though it is a given that this is necessary. Our kids will not be prepared for the work force if they don't start learning at age 2.

What a bunch of baloney! I would so love to see this early learning movement squashed so early childhood can return to learning through playing in a relaxed manner. This is all about passing standardized tests and supposedly keeping up with other countries in the world where kids perform higher on the tests. We have a totally different kind of culture here, we don't track kids into vo-tech, and we don't kick kids out of regular school who have behavior issues or disabilities. We prize individualism and independence. All of this is contrary to what happens in some other countries where kids are tracked from a young age and expected to perform well or else. I do not want my child exposed to that kind of performance stress, at any age, but particularly as a toddler.

Playgroups and early learning are fine ideas but I do not think they should be mandated. This is just going to cause little kids and their parents to be stressed about school and job from a very young age. My child and I participate in a playgroup but we go to playgrounds or amusements like the zoo. We have fun with other families. We are not training them for kindergarten by expecting them to be able to line up, etc.

What is wrong with starting learning at Kindergarten? Why is the government trying to take our children's childhood away? What is going to come next, mandated flashcards for infants?

Thoughts?

[Mirzam]

It is called lifelong learning (aka conditioning) -- limited learning for lifelong labor. The government and the corporations want a compliant workforce and they need to start them young to train them into behaving and thinking "correctly" by utilizing Pavlovian/Skinnerian training techiniques. Our children are not dogs, they are not rats, and don't need to be trained in this manner.

Have you ever read anything by Charlotte Iserbyt (Deliberate Dumbing Down of America)? She is extremely conserative (in the true sense of the word, not neocon faux conservative) and is Christian, so if you are neither, which I am not, you have to get past this, but her information is impecible IMO because it from "horses mouth".

I wonder who funds this organization?

This year, Child Care Resources, a non-profit agency that helps parents find decent child care in the area, created the Play & Learn Network, which offers training, research, materials, publicity and some startup funding to play-groups in the Puget Sound region. These groups often charge nothing, or a nominal fee of $1 to $3, according to the non-profit.

And the fact that the Rand Corporation is involved proves to me that this is ultimately a workforce training program. The more I read about this stuff the more disillusioned I become about the education our children are getting in public and private schools who buy into this crap. I don't even think homeschoolers are immune to this conditioning for those whose parents choose the Skinnerian type programs to teach their children. "Teaching your Children to Read in 100 Easy Lessons" is just one that comes to mind.

NCLB has all but mandated the behaviorist model in public schools.

[royaloakmi]

My dh and I have been talking about this topic a lot lately. We looked at the curriculum for our public school's kindergarten and our response was: "WTF? We're no longer educating human beings!! We're educating future workers!!!??"

This is one of the main reasons we're considering homeschooling or Waldorf.

[lauren]

I don't think the article is suggesting that they are training toddlers for jobs now. It is suggesting that every dollar spent on quality early care and education is a dollar saved in taxpayer expenses later. Well nurtured children with loving parents don't have to worry about this. Where this is an issue is in homes where there aren't as many resources or where parents can't read, or don't know how to provide any stimulating activities for their children. There are many many families that face these challenges. When their children show up for kindergarten, they truly are at a disadvantage. These are children that, given more stimulation, might have been right on par with their classmates, but due to numerous factors, are not. So I agree that investing in quality early care and education is important for some children. If children start out solid (not advanced, not above grade level) they will indeed have a better chance at a good education and a better chance at succeeding with their peers socially, as well as not getting labeled or mis-labeled by teachers.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by lauren

I don't think the article is suggesting that they are training toddlers for jobs now. It is suggesting that every dollar spent on quality early care and education is a dollar saved in taxpayer expenses later. Well nurtured children with loving parents don't have to worry about this. Where this is an issue is in homes where there aren't as many resources or where parents can't read, or don't know how to provide any stimulating activities for their children. There are many many families that face these challenges. When their children show up for kindergarten, they truly are at a disadvantage. These are children that, given more stimulation, might have been right on par with their classmates, but due to numerous factors, are not. So I agree that investing in quality early care and education is important for some children. If children start out solid (not advanced, not above grade level) they will indeed have a better chance at a good education and a better chance at succeeding with their peers socially, as well as not getting labeled or mis-labeled by teachers.

I know it sounds like a good idea, but if you understand where all this is coming from it is incredibly sinister. The whole point of this type of conditioning is to ensure the kids have the right values and attitude from the get go. Note this program seems to target children from non English speaking families who are likely to have different values from the average American. These values might not conform to what corporations are looking for in a future workforce. So earlier they get them the easier it is to change into what corporations need, an easily managable workforce. I know it seems ridiculous that they would target children as young as this, but it is they do this with Head Start too.

Personally, I think the money would be better spent on ensuring these children get at least one nutrient dense meal a day along the lines of the work of Weston A Price who through a hearty lunch of bone broth soup, whole grain bread, raw butter, raw milk and a supplement of cod liver oil and high vitamin butter oil, turn a group of distruptive, "problem" children into model learners. Seriously. Of course that won't help the agenda.

[Mirzam]

I just found this:

http://www.rand.org/news/press.05/03.30.html

RAND STUDY SAYS CREATING UNIVERSAL PRESCHOOL IN CALIFORNIA WOULD CREATE BENEFITS THAT SURPASS COSTS

“There is strong and growing evidence that providing children a year of high quality preschool before they enter kindergarten boosts their achievement over a long period of time and prevents many problems,” said Lynn Karoly, a RAND senior economist and lead author of the report. “Our analysis shows that an investment in universal preschool in California would provide a net economic benefit to the state.”

and

“It's a simple equation. Investing in preschool leads to a stronger workforce, better jobs, reduced juvenile crime, and an increased standard of living for all Californians,” said Lois Salisbury, director of the Children, Families and Communities Program at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. “And it also happens to be great for kids.”

..and on it goes...

Karoly said there also would likely be other benefits that researchers could not quantify. Those include increasing the state's labor force in the near term because more mothers would be able to hold jobs, and making California a more desirable location for businesses.

Dog biscuits children?

Here is the actual study mentioned in the OP:

RAND STUDY SAYS EARLY CHILDHOOD INTERVENTION PROGRAMS SAVE MONEY AND BENEFIT CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND SOCIETY

http://www.rand.org/news/press.06/01.12.html

It's more of the same:

The report by RAND Labor and Population says effective early childhood programs return more to society in benefits than they cost, by enabling youngsters to lead more successful lives and be less dependent on future government assistance. Researchers say this is because such programs help children improve their thinking skills, do better in school and develop socially.

In addition, the report says early childhood programs that focus on the entire family can help parents provide better care to their children and make it less likely that parents will mistreat their children. This reduces health care costs for children, including trips to the emergency room.

The study – called “Early Childhood Interventions: Proven Results, Future Promise” – was funded by The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (NYSE: PNC) through its PNC Grow Up Great initiative, 10-year, $100 million investment to improve school readiness for children from birth to age five.

“This growing body of evidence makes a compelling case for the need for and the importance of high quality early childhood education,” said Eva Tansky Blum, PNC senior vice president and director of PNC Grow Up Great. “Investing in the academic success of our children directly contributes to the overall economic health of our nation.”

[lerlerler]

I live in California so I've heard ALL the hype.

Here's my 2 cents.

A lot of the rhetoric about better jobs is for the folks that don't want to fund ANYTHING because our taxes are too high, so it's their way of saying "Free pre-school will pay for itself in the longrun" NOT "send your kid to pre-school so he can be a manager at McD's"

Do I believe in universal pre-school? No, because I agree with many mamas here that it's just shoving NCLB down to a younger crew...

HOWEVER, I understand the statistics. For a mama with little means and support, sometimes the only daycare that is affordable is REALLY sub-par and a pre-school with a free snack and a caring teacher would be a GREAT improvement in a child's life.

So I shock people at the farmer's market when I refuse to gign the universal pre-school petition. Let's put money into the communities that need help... and get a handle on daycare... do we really need to offer free pre-school for multi-millionaires?

[lauren]

My understanding of universal preschool is that it would be available to anyone who needs it, not that every child would have to go.

[boongirl]

Originally Posted by lauren

My understanding of universal preschool is that it would be available to anyone who needs it, not that every child would have to go.

I think that this is legally true but I think there is increased pressure, from the media, from government, from other parents, to send young children to preschool early and continue them in preschool until they hit kindergarten. Kindergarten teachers these days use curriculum that assumes children went to preschool. Those who don't, just like the article implies, may be behind the moment they walk in the kindergarten door. That, to me, is very sad. I want my child to experience the joy of learning at a pace that suits her developmentally. I do not want her to be a cog in the learning machine.

[True Blue]

Um, this all very interesting bc UC Berkeley and Stanford are publishing this study, the first of its kind, looking at the benfits and LOSSES preschool gives, that negates much of the information in this article and the CA one. Preschool hinders social development much the same as living with a depressed parent, all the way to third grade!!

[lauren]

I guess some of my opinion is influenced less by my own children and more with the many low income preschool programs I consult with. So many of the children come into preschool with so little experience and skill, and many with trauma histories, poor attachment, living with domestic violence, etc. For many of them, their preschool experience becomes the one stable, nurturing place they will get during these years, and if they feel safe enough, maybe they will also learn how to identify colors, letters, shapes, learn what the weather is, how to sit in circle, etc. For many of them it is not at all about being a cog in a wheel.

Sometimes I think public policy is developed to address the many many children that start the world this way, rather than targeting the well nurtured children who will be fine in school no matter what.

I just read the Berkeley study (thanks for that link) and it supports what I said above: children from the poorest families have cognitive gains while not losing any social gains. Middle class children make modest cognitive gains but actually lose some social gains. I also like the way the study differentiated between children who go part time and those that go full time. It stands to reason that some children would lose by going to center based care more than 30 hours per week as compared to 25 hours or less, depending on their home situation.

I think it's an interesting study and will certainly shake up the policy debate.

[marybethorama]

Originally Posted by lerlerler

HOWEVER, I understand the statistics. For a mama with little means and support, sometimes the only daycare that is affordable is REALLY sub-par and a pre-school with a free snack and a caring teacher would be a GREAT improvement in a child's life.

So I shock people at the farmer's market when I refuse to gign the universal pre-school petition. Let's put money into the communities that need help... and get a handle on daycare... do we really need to offer free pre-school for multi-millionaires?

I agree. My kids didn't really need free pre-school. I can see where it would benefit others who don't have the advantages we do though.

[True Blue]

Actually, the study says that while the poorest children have the highest cognitive gains, they ALL had significant negative social effects, with the wealthiest seeing the worst in the social skills department (fig e2) and middle class saw the least in cognitive development. In fact, the one intervention that saw the BEST cognitive gains was the reduction of kindergarten class size in Tennessee (fig c), and not head start or preschool programs. So it would seem that reducing kindergarten size would be the answer, not free pre-k. Wouldn't that be cheaper for everyone anyway?

[lauren]

I think I was referrring to this section when drawing that conclusion:

"For children from lower-income homes, additional hours in center programs does not further slow social development while it does advance cognitive gains (Figure E2). But for children from higher-income families, additional hours in care do further slow behavioral growth, while at the same time failing to improve cognitive outcomes relative to moderate attendance of 15 to 30 hours per week"

[True Blue]

Oh! I see. Sorry about that, I hope it didn't come out as an attack LOL Sometimes online can do that!!

[sparklefairy]

Oh my!

My kids didn't do anything "formal" until they were 5 and they both figured out sitting in a circle and lining up in about 2 minutes. They'd already had some experience sharing/taking turns and negotiating, possibly due to having a close sibling, but also because we've spent a lot of time in informal, nonskilloriented playgroups and homeschool groups.

Does no one know anything about natural child development anymore?

[Aeress]

anytime I read about the need for children to line up and walk in a straight line I cringe. Sure it is helpful to understand that walking to one side or the other helps keep the flow of traffic moving but can you succeed in your life if you can't...sure. Makes me mad...so much of what makes childhood a special time in life has been taken away from our kids. Play is learning and learning is play in my house and at the center I work at. I do not push down anything and I refuse to allow tests to come anywhere near my children...but I have the information I need to question why children are learning what they are learning...many people do not question schools about their curriculum.

[lauren]

True Blue, no you didn't sound like you were attacking! Far from it. It's a very interesting study and the first of it's kind that I've seen. I was very intrigued by the findings, though I found I had to read some of the paragraphs several times to digest.

[captain optimism]

I think the purpose of these kinds of studies is to argue that enriched early education is better than some other forms of day care. If you are a single mom and you are either working to eke out a living, or because the subsistence you get from TANF requires you to work, which would you rather have for your child: a day care experience with no interesting content, or something intellectually stimulating? A study like this one is something a non-profit can use to get corporations and foundations to fund a more intellectually stimulating early education program, so that a low-income mom can afford that for her child.

If I were formulating social policy, though, and I were really serious about making things good for children and families, I wouldn't stop with funding better early education. I would also make it possible for low-income moms to stay home with their children by ending the busy-work requirements of TANF. I would also want to restore funding that used to allow welfare recipients to pursue higher education. What could be better for young children's academic success than to see their moms model REAL life-long learning.

I mean, I totally agree that at present, a lot of children find stability in structured preschool programs from families at risk because of domestic violence, homelessness, and the general pressures of not having enough money. But couldn't we fix those problems by increasing funding to programs that help women escape violent relationships, help families find stable housing, and help parents of both sexes get the education they need for better jobs? Why are all of these social programs structured around "parent-proofing" children, instead of helping families as a whole?

Better early ed. is just a band-aid. It's a good one, but it's not enough.

[Altair]

It can't be ignored that there are huge numbers of children in this country who spend their infancy and toddlerhoods in bouncy seats watching the tv. all day. very little interaction, propped bottles, CIO for naps.

It is easy to see the effects when these children enter school and just plain have no idea how to appropriately act around other people. they just don't have the life-skills and social skills to speak nicely and add to the commuinity. they wreck havoc b/c it's the only way they know to get attention.

It's really, really mind-numblingly sad. It is unfortunatley associated with poverty and SES because less money means less options. It is not universal, OF COURSE, but it's a reality for some kids who TV is quite literally a babysitter.

I wish these children were in preschools. they need their brain's stimualted. they need less media and sensory overloads. they need people re-directing them and gently pushing them towards relationships.

there are way too many kids in this country who fall into this category.