Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can see this working if it's done right. There aren't many details in the article, but basically, the money saved by having some students graduate in three years instead of four would be used to fund preschool for approximately twice as many children as the early graduates.
Sounds interesting, but let me just throw this out there: In a lot of high schools nationwide, manny seniors (and quite often some juniors) are far enough along that they can take college-level course for credit, usually at a reduced cost, or even for free, because the local school district pays for it either through AP classes offered at the high school or PSEO. These students can sometimes earn up to 3-4 semesters worth of college credit for minimal costs. Considering how much college tuition is these days, that's a huge benefit. So it seems like there would be a tradeoff if this idea were implemented because although students in 12th grade would be taking college credit courses either way, they may be giving up the opportunity to do it cheaply.
Sounds interesting, but let me just throw this out there: In a lot of high schools nationwide, manny seniors (and quite often some juniors) are far enough along that they can take college-level course for credit, usually at a reduced cost, or even for free, because the local school district pays for it either through AP classes offered at the high school or PSEO. These students can sometimes earn up to 3-4 semesters worth of college credit for minimal costs. Considering how much college tuition is these days, that's a huge benefit. So it seems like there would be a tradeoff if this idea were implemented because although students in 12th grade would be taking college credit courses either way, they may be giving up the opportunity to do it cheaply.
They want to shift the burden. Already we have kids paying to go to college in order to receive the same type of job that in my day was achieved by just getting a FREE high school diploma. We have an entire generation that is starting life with a non-dischargeable debt, because student loans are not forgivable. This burden will push back their ability to being self supporting and buy homes at the same age we did.
They want to shift the burden. Already we have kids paying to go to college in order to receive the same type of job that in my day was achieved by just getting a FREE high school diploma. We have an entire generation that is starting life with a non-dischargeable debt, because student loans are not forgivable. This burden will push back their ability to being self supporting and buy homes at the same age we did.
I'm just saying that this may not be the wisest decision, particularly for the students themselves.
I agree..and I'm not a fan of full day "pre" kindergarten anyways...that's just fancy for daycare.
The problem is that the children who most need pre-kindergarten don't usually get it. Then they arrive at school with half the preschool learning that they need in order to perform at grade level. I won't even go into the trend of kindergarten now demanding what used to be second-grade skills.
If children are in school, that frees their parents for a day job, enabling them to pay taxes and become self-sufficient. That helps me as a taxpayer in two ways. The children are better equipped to succeed at what school will demand from them, and the welfare rolls could be cut allowing my tax money to be used for other purposes.
lhpartridge...are you saying that someone who DOES stay home with their children, and teaches them themselves until grade 1, can't become self sufficient? , and that their children won't be "equipped to succeed" at school? Your posts sounds like you think only people on welfare can stay home with their young toddlers until they start school?..Whose taxes do you think are paying for "pre kindergarten"?
lhpartridge...are you saying that someone who DOES stay home with their children, and teaches them themselves until grade 1, can't become self sufficient? , and that their children won't be "equipped to succeed" at school? Your posts sounds like you think only people on welfare can stay home with their young toddlers until they start school?..Whose taxes do you think are paying for "pre kindergarten"?
Not at all. In fact, that sounds like the ideal situation. On the other hand, I work with a population that includes a disproportionate incidence of teen pregnancy. The girls have their first babies when they are in middle or high school, when they can't really stay home with them and stay on course for graduation. During the course of their reproductive years, the young women hopefully mature and become better mothers and providers for their children. Some will remain in a relationship with the fathers, while others will have to manage without their assistance. Some will only have one or two children, but others will go on to have a large family. (I sat next to a mom at graduation year before last whose two oldest children were graduating--not twins, but two of 15 children including a couple of sets of twins.
As 23% of children in the Unites States are growing up in poverty, and poverty is highly correlated with the pre-school achievement gap, it is not uncommon for 5-year-olds to arrive at kindergarten with the language skills on a par with a typical 2-year-old. Over the course of the years, the gap remains fairly consistent, with poor children taking twice as long to achieve academic milestones. This is the population that needs pre-school. HeadStart is a non-professional program that is better than nothing, but as studies have shown, is not as effective as growing up in a literate home.
I didn't intend for my post to have such a blunt tone. I am all for parents to have a choice in their children's education. It's just that I know so many people who, for whatever reason, haven't prepared their children as well as possible for their academic careers. I'm a strong believer in the right of a child to not be handicapped by their parents. In other words, parents shouldn't have the right to keep their kids in substandard conditions, including academic neglect, and I see a lot of that.
Do you have any suggestions for improving the lot of pre-school children in substandard learning environments? It just seems that if a 17-year-old is done with secondary education, and a swap could provide a major benefit at the time that it would be most beneficial to a 3- or 4-year-old, that is an idea worth exploring.
I think this is just trying to capitalize on the fact that the younger you are the more adaptable to learning you are. You can get that at home as easily as at school, even better if people homeschool with a purpose, but most don't. I also agree that many people don't need 4 years of High School. When my mom was in school back in the 30's and 40's they often skipped grades (she skipped 3rd grade) and there were two graduations each year so people were basically graduating out every 6 months depending on how quickly they met all the requirements and test results. She graduated at age 16.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
