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.
Serious question. PLEASE leave out the debate of liberal brainwashing in our school system (if this wasn't thought of then don't )
From everything I have heard the brain is ready to soak things up at a young age.
Why exactly do we let the non-professionals (parents) do the teaching at the "learning" age and not the professionals (teachers)? This isn't to say that most do a bad job, it just seems that teachers who went to school for this sort of thing would seem to be more prepared thus helping kids start off at a great pace.
It seems to me that if you learn more when you are at a young age, the trained professionals should be doing the teaching.
It just seems unproductive to keep kids out of the professional hands when they WANT to learn at a young age and in the professional hands when they DON'T WANT to learn during the high school years (NOT everyone obviously).
Any thoughts?
My thoughts would be to change the school age from 3-15 or so and let kids decide from there. Obviously there are kinks that seriously need to be worked out but I have always wondered this.
I probably didn't post it as eliquently as I wanted but you get the main idea.
Please don't post flames either, it's just a thought.
Serious question. PLEASE leave out the debate of liberal brainwashing in our school system (if this wasn't thought of then don't )
From everything I have heard the brain is ready to soak things up at a young age.
Why exactly do we let the non-professionals (parents) do the teaching at the "learning" age and not the professionals (teachers)? This isn't to say that most do a bad job, it just seems that teachers who went to school for this sort of thing would seem to be more prepared thus helping kids start off at a great pace.
It seems to me that if you learn more when you are at a young age, the trained professionals should be doing the teaching.
It just seems unproductive to keep kids out of the professional hands when they WANT to learn at a young age and in the professional hands when they DON'T WANT to learn during the high school years (NOT everyone obviously).
Any thoughts?
My thoughts would be to change the school age from 3-15 or so and let kids decide from there. Obviously there are kinks that seriously need to be worked out but I have always wondered this.
I probably didn't post it as eliquently as I wanted but you get the main idea.
Please don't post flames either, it's just a thought.
Speaking as both a homeschooler and a teacher, I'm not fully convinced that the "professionals" necessarily and always excel the parents at teaching individual children appropriate skills at an appropriate pace. Of course some do, and of course some parents "drop the ball" on their children's early education, but I don't think it's advisable to have kindergarten begin so early.
For one, leaving aside the very obvious issues that there would be little distinction between kindergarten and day care at this age, with all of its attendant issues like toilet training, there's also the issue of emotional readiness. Right now, parents' individual needs dictate whether they will choose to put their child(ren) in day care, but I would be reluctant to have the state make this mandatory.
Next, the issue of taxation immediately comes up. What you're essentially talking about is state-sponsored day care. Whereas I think this would be a boon for many families, especially lower-income families currently spending a great deal of their income on day care, I'm not sure that others would fully support the tax burden that this plan of yours would require.
In an ideal society families would be supported to provide an enriching environment with lots of one-on-one interactions at that age. Research shows that children learn far better in small groups with a caregiver that is "emotionally" attached to the child. It is very difficult to provide that in a public school setting. As children age they are better equipped to "learn" in a setting that is larger and without the "emotional" attachment.
Now given that our society does not support that, you are right, some children would benefit because their family circumstance can't provide that environment. But the financial costs of that would be very high. And if you did it right, it would be VERY high....
There are some states (Georgia is one I believe) that have gone to a model of "Pre-K for all". I have since left the field to focus on my own family, so I don't know how successful that has been.
Serious question. PLEASE leave out the debate of liberal brainwashing in our school system (if this wasn't thought of then don't )
From everything I have heard the brain is ready to soak things up at a young age.
Why exactly do we let the non-professionals (parents) do the teaching at the "learning" age and not the professionals (teachers)? This isn't to say that most do a bad job, it just seems that teachers who went to school for this sort of thing would seem to be more prepared thus helping kids start off at a great pace. Because IMHO children of this age are far too physically young not to be deeply involved with their parents on any level. At this age, children learn most IMO by unstructured play and discovery, and by parental bonding and interaction. Have we really as a society gone so far over the deep end concerning ourselves with testing scores to the degree we would essentially put "babies" into a structured classroom setting? Man, I'm hoping not.
It seems to me that if you learn more when you are at a young age, the trained professionals should be doing the teaching. Life skills are the biggest things children need to learn at this stage IMO. Who better to teach them then their parents?
It just seems unproductive to keep kids out of the professional hands when they WANT to learn at a young age and in the professional hands when they DON'T WANT to learn during the high school years (NOT everyone obviously).
Any thoughts? Well, since you asked...I'll give you an example from my own experience - obviously, others will have differing stories: My daughter started reading at 3, and loved, loved, loved to do her Brighter Vision workbooks and activities. She loved to "play school" as well. By the time she was in 2nd grade, she was so utterly fed up with schoolwork in general, that I can hardly get her to look at a fun puzzle book now (in 3rd). Long story short, it's not half as much fun for her anymore because now she equates it with, and I quote, "Work, work, work." That's not good IMHO. I think that by placing children into structured learning environments earlier and earlier, we are asking for burnout by 6th grade of such a magnitude that we better be prepared to remediate all sorts of college students later on, begin research on even more antidepressant/antianxiety medications, and be prepared for some mighty frustrated and angry kids. Certainly not all, but many.
My thoughts would be to change the school age from 3-15 or so and let kids decide from there. Obviously there are kinks that seriously need to be worked out but I have always wondered this. I think that most crusty old people (I include myself in their numbers) will agree that the maturity level of most 15 year olds isn't high enough to begin full time work or college level courses. Now of course, there's always exceptions to the rules.
I probably didn't post it as eliquently as I wanted but you get the main idea. Eloquence isn't important. Seeing both sides of the discussion before judging however is, so I think this is a great post.
Please don't post flames either, it's just a thought.
Pffffttt! I agree. It's hard to have a good discussion when others aren't willing to partake in rational discourse.
Serious question. PLEASE leave out the debate of liberal brainwashing in our school system (if this wasn't thought of then don't )
From everything I have heard the brain is ready to soak things up at a young age.
Why exactly do we let the non-professionals (parents) do the teaching at the "learning" age and not the professionals (teachers)? This isn't to say that most do a bad job, it just seems that teachers who went to school for this sort of thing would seem to be more prepared thus helping kids start off at a great pace.
It seems to me that if you learn more when you are at a young age, the trained professionals should be doing the teaching.
It just seems unproductive to keep kids out of the professional hands when they WANT to learn at a young age and in the professional hands when they DON'T WANT to learn during the high school years (NOT everyone obviously).
Any thoughts?
My thoughts would be to change the school age from 3-15 or so and let kids decide from there. Obviously there are kinks that seriously need to be worked out but I have always wondered this.
I probably didn't post it as eliquently as I wanted but you get the main idea.
Please don't post flames either, it's just a thought.
Young children learn through play, not through the regimentation of school. Play is not just a way for children to entertain themselves or to pass the time, they actually learn about the world through play. The last thing they need is to have their play replaced by the regimentation of school.
I put my son in daycare at 3 yrs old but no way could he sit still enough to stay in his seat for kindergarten at that age.
Three year olds are all over the map and ahead at three doesn't mean ahead at 6. You just can't judge a child based on where they are at 3.
Let's compare my youngest daugther to her friend in preschool. My dd was not, remotely, interested in reading when her friend started reading (my dd preferred to memorize how to spell words but didn't care to read them which was odd). By kindergarten her friend was reading on a 1st grade level. My dd started reading in kindergarten and both girls finished the year reading on a 3rd grade level. My dd was not ready for kindergarten at three but she ended up doing just fine. In fact, she's now in the 7th grade, after a double promotion and has a 10th grade reading level, a 9th grade math level and a 10th grade science level. All we would have done if we'd put her in kindergarten at 3 would have been to set the stage for her thinking she was a failure because she couldn't, yet, do what the other kids could do. The fact she didn't start reading until she was 6 doesn't seem to have hurt her one bit. Kids need time to develop at their own pace before school starts and, IMHO, there's no harm done in letting them be kids for a while. Dd's friend (now ex as they no longer get along) didn't benefit from her early education. She's just more competitive because of it.
Now I would like to see preschool available to all. I think kids who are in a group setting before kindergarten come in with an advantage. Not an academic one but a behavoir one. They already know how to sit still and that sharing, though unpleasant, is expected. However, I think preschool should be fairly unstructured. I don't think 3-5 is a time to worry about academics. There's plenty of time for that later.
I think parents who teach their children young do them a disservice. They just end up bored in school. Then when the other kids catch up to them, they find they've never developed the study habits they need to succeed and they can fall behind.
You can put them in nursery school at 3, I did.
We have kids start school at 4 in Ontario and they are fine. 3 is good for nursery school, learning to socialize in a school like environment. If it is too "harsh" they won't like school at a very young age.
They soak up all kinds of things at 3 without having to be with a professional. Most kids theses days are at a daycare ctr. which at the very least teaches socialization skills.
Being home with family is just as important, they don't get as sick, when they are sick, they don't learn as much anyway.
Everyone is different, I think 3 is young for mandatory school, but good if you know your child is ready.
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.
)
Man, I'm hoping not. 
(I include myself in their numbers) will agree that the maturity level of most 15 year olds isn't high enough to begin full time work or college level courses. Now of course, there's always exceptions to the rules.
