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.
Teaching is done by many ways, not just sitting at a desk. By using the color words in connection to anything of that color, you were indeed teaching your children colors. It's a natural, organic way for children to learn colors exactly they same as they learned any other word in connection to something.
They learned Mom and Dad for instance is attached to certain people by direct use of those words. They learned bottle, blanket, dog, car and so on by use of those words as well. If a baby/child never heard spoken words, they would never form what we consider coherent words. Sounds will occur, but without teaching of actual words, they would develop their own sounds with their own meanings.
Anytime they asked a question and you answered it, you were teaching them.
Anytime they needed to know how something worked and you showed them, you were teaching them.
Parents are the front line teachers of their children and most of it is natural progression, organic in nature and done without thinking. That doesn't negate the fact that it is teaching.
Yes, yes, yes...
But again, my point is that interaction with parents is natural and provides many other benefits than a child learning that the car is blue. And I think some of those benefits are ignored by those who are ardent supporters of UPK programs.
Also, please note I was debating the idea that it was "teaching" in the classical sense of the word and how it is being used in this thread and by the poster to which I replied in the response you copied.
But again, my point is that interaction with parents is natural and provides many other benefits than a child learning that the car is blue. And I think some of those benefits are ignored by those who are ardent supporters of UPK programs.
I totally agree about this. Many tend to greatly underestimate this aspect.
What a pleasant bubble some of you live in. I wish I lived there, it sure sounds nice.
Some kids do not have engaging, loving parents. They NEED services like free PreK just to learn the basics. Children cannot absorb information they do not have access to.
Sitting in front of a TV does not teach a child. YOU may make sure your kids are watching only educational programs but other, less enlightened parents might be ok with SpongeBob and Family Guy.
Many, many, many mothers work. "Isn't that what we're supposed to be teaching them at home during the day?" May I say, with all due respect, shove it lady. Staying home with your kids is a luxury the majority cannot afford.
God, people, leave your neighborhood once in a while. Universal PreK is a great idea and 4 year olds should be well able to handle it. It can also help by getting ahead of behavioral or speech problems before real school. They learn through playing, being read to and activities. If your kid can't handle being around people 6 hours a day then that's something you need to work on.
I agree with this.
I support the goal of full-time universal Pre-K, particularly in a city like New York where it can be virtually impossible to find suitable child care for working parents.
When I was a young parent, I, and virtually all of the mothers I knew, had no choice regarding whether or not to work. Our kids were in all-day daycare until they were old enough to attend all day kindergarten (if we were lucky) or first grade.
Trying to coordinate multiple trips to school to pick-up and/or drop-off kids on different schedules was not a luxury of time any of us could afford particularly when so many of us lived in different boroughs and even states from where we worked.
If your life choices involve being able to keep your kids home until kindergarten or first grade, good for you.
Millions of women do not have that option and it is long past time we stop pretending that everyone has the same lifestyle and same needs.
Some of our pubic schools (mainly in low income areas right now) have full day Pre-k and kindergarten. They do not drill the kids academically all day long. There seems to be plenty of time for snacks, free play, going outdoors, and resting. For kids who may not get the required exposure to numbers and letters before entering school I think this is a great way to give them those skills.
Children from disadvantaged backgrounds often lack basic skills that are picked up by being with adults a bit more. The average child will have an adult pointing to items in the grocery store and talking about what it is, maybe how much it costs. When your toddler runs up to you with something not in the budget, most parents explain the concept. Kids who are riding with their parents in cars and buses will point to signs and start recognizing letters or sounding out words. These type of skills are lacking in the lower socioeconomic groups in our area. They don't know what a cucumber is and have no idea of the value of a penny, dollar, etc.
Done correctly, I think everyone has plenty to learn from all day pre- and kinder.
I support the goal of full-time universal Pre-K, particularly in a city like New York where it can be virtually impossible to find suitable child care for working parents.
When I was a young parent, I, and virtually all of the mothers I knew, had no choice regarding whether or not to work. Our kids were in all-day daycare until they were old enough to attend all day kindergarten (if we were lucky) or first grade.
Trying to coordinate multiple trips to school to pick-up and/or drop-off kids on different schedules was not a luxury of time any of us could afford particularly when so many of us lived in different boroughs and even states from where we worked.
If your life choices involve being able to keep your kids home until kindergarten or first grade, good for you. Millions of women do not have that option and it is long past time we stop pretending that everyone has the same lifestyle and same needs.
I totally agree with the bolded but your post speaks more to the benefit of full day universal preschool to the parents then it does to the kids.
I work full time and my son was in full time childcare from the time he was an infant. Full day pre-K still had lots of unstructured free time, and he did great. There was also a nap time, which was a problem for my son since he didn't nap by then, but it was there for those who needed it.
Aside for the academic aspect, there was a lot of social learning - things like table manners. For many kids, the reinforcement of seeing other kids do something is really helpful.
I think it shouldn't be mandatory and no one should *have* to send their kid. But for those who want to utilize it, it's great.
I totally agree with the bolded but your post speaks more to the benefit of full day universal preschool to the parents then it does to the kids.
And this is bad why?
Are you suggesting that things that benefit parents cannot by extension also benefit their kids?
I wonder how many of the people that believe that full-day pre-K is "too much" for kids think nothing of scheduling dance, swim, martial arts... classes for those same kids each and every day of the week.
I've seen kids as young as two in a forty-five minute dance class three+ times a week.
IMHO, that is too much.
But, many people believe that having scheduled activities each and every day of the week to be beneficial to their kids.
I didn't say it was bad but this discussion was about the benefits or drawbacks to kids.
Quote:
Are you suggesting that things that benefit parents cannot by extension also benefit their kids?
The benefit to parents is free or reduced cost full day childcare. That might benefit the kids in a minor way but I don't see it benefiting them in an educational way.
Quote:
I wonder how many of the people that believe that full-day pre-K is "too much" for kids think nothing of scheduling dance, swim, martial arts... classes for those same kids each and every day of the week.
I think full day Pre-K would be too much for my kids. If a parent chose to schedule one activity each day of the week it would equate to 5 hours a week vs 30. I don't get the comparison.
Quote:
I've seen kids as young as two in a forty-five minute dance class three+ times a week.
IMHO, that is too much.
That's less then 3 hours a week. I don't understand why you would think three hours a week would be too much but 30 is fine.
Quote:
But, many people believe that having scheduled activities each and every day of the week to be beneficial to their kids.
But again, my point is that interaction with parents is natural and provides many other benefits than a child learning that the car is blue. And I think some of those benefits are ignored by those who are ardent supporters of UPK programs.
Also, please note I was debating the idea that it was "teaching" in the classical sense of the word and how it is being used in this thread and by the poster to which I replied in the response you copied.
No, I did NOT say that teaching only happens in the "classical sense" you inferred that, incorrectly
No, I did NOT say that teaching only happens in the "classical sense" you inferred that, incorrectly
Since I inferred it from the entirety of the thread I did not say that you said it.
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.
