article: Preschool What Kids Need From Grown-Ups

[MarkT]

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/02/09/465557430/what-kids-need-from-grown-ups-but-arent-getting?utm_source=npr_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20160214&utm_campaign=bestofnpr&utm_term=nprnews

[Bluegoat]

I read this a few days ago.  It was good, though not new information really.

[HomeAgain]

I found it interesting in how it stressed the lack of play and learning how to govern oneself in an era where children are micromanaged is hurting them long term - you have adults that have trouble not only self-censoring, but dealing with others who may offend them.

[Guest]

I read this a few days ago. It was good, though not new information really.

Ditto. I certainly agree with everything there. I hope this messege proliferates widely enough to actually make a difference for the better for ps little ones. Well, for any little ones whose adults think they age out of unlimited free play at three or whatever crazy young age they aim for.

[908874]

I read that a while back. I enjoyed the article. There was a link to this article: 

Why Kindergarten Is The New First Grade which is also enlightening. You are all right, this is not new information. But I still like reading about it :) 

[Mimm]

Since the information doesn't seem to be sinking in where it needs to, it bears repeating. :)

[SKL]

I think free play is great, but where do kids really get to play freely in a way that uses and hones their natural abilities?  On ultra-safe baby playgrounds?  Play groups that are closely supervised and protect kids from themselves the whole time?  Neighborhoods where the cops are called if a kid isn't within arm's length of an adult?  Does it really count as "free play" if it's dumbed down by several years for safety's sake?  Kids need some kind of challenge and sense of achievement.  It's been a source of frustration for me as a parent.

[8filltheheart]

Anyone who has read my posts over the years knows I agree with the article. Absolutely how I raise my kids.

 

Fwiw, I don't think preschoolers orKers need their skills "honed.". I let them play and explore, whether in the backyard or inside with their toys. Imagination rules!

 

Love the teensagers/adults my children become. Free play childhood has not held my kids back. They excel.

Edited February 14, 2016 by 8FillTheHeart

[mom2att]

Here's an article on NYC preschools that sound like they are doing a pretty good job following Christakis's ideas, though some of them sound a little contrived. The cost per student is absolutely astounding, and with 60% of NYC 4-year-olds enrolled, I'm not sure how long they can keep it up, particularly with the article's suggestion that getting the kids at three would be even better. I often wonder if the underprivileged segment they are trying to reach would be better served by not offering access to ALL but instead directing more funding to those who can't afford any preschool, let alone a quality one. But my kids never went to preschool at all in spite of it being "free" in my state, so there's that. Anyway, here's the article:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/how-new-york-made-pre-k-a-success.html?_r=0

[Bluegoat]

I think free play is great, but where do kids really get to play freely in a way that uses and hones their natural abilities?  On ultra-safe baby playgrounds?  Play groups that are closely supervised and protect kids from themselves the whole time?  Neighborhoods where the cops are called if a kid isn't within arm's length of an adult?  Does it really count as "free play" if it's dumbed down by several years for safety's sake?  Kids need some kind of challenge and sense of achievement.  It's been a source of frustration for me as a parent.

 I guess we just on the one hand try and make people we talk to think about these things, and on the other do our best to give our kids the freedoms we can.  Maybe we can't totally flout the norms where we live, but we may be able to push back a little.

 

I've notiiced with my friends in different neighbourhoods around the city, the ones that are more free range, people love them and they opt in.  It isn't that they are moving there for that because usually they don't know, and are just so glad to find out that the kids in the area are allowed out to play.

 

So I think every little bit can help empower others.

[wintermom]

I completely agree with the author, that free play is very important. What she didn't address, that I believe is even more important, is that pre-schoolers need their parents' time. Not necessarily time with structured activities, but time with adults that are their parents - not more time for free play in a room full of strangers.  I'm also pretty sure that I wouldn't get supportive responses for this idea in Yale, etiher.

Edited February 15, 2016 by wintermom

[Guest]

I completely agree with the author, that free play is very important. What she didn't address, that I believe is even more important, is that pre-schoolers need their parents' time. Not necessarily time with structured activities, but time with adults that are their parents - not more time for free play in a room full of strangers.  I'm also pretty sure that I wouldn't get supportive responses for this idea in Yale, etiher.

 

Yeah.

[Bluegoat]

I completely agree with the author, that free play is very important. What she didn't address, that I believe is even more important, is that pre-schoolers need their parents' time. Not necessarily time with structured activities, but time with adults that are their parents - not more time for free play in a room full of strangers.  I'm also pretty sure that I wouldn't get supportive responses for this idea in Yale, etiher.

Hmm.  I would say that time with adults is more important than we seem to want to admit, though I don't think that is the same as free play time - I don't think adults need to play with kids.

 

Parent might be an ideal but I tend to think that anyone is that consistent, and where there is a reasonable adult to child ratio, and a small group, is pretty good.

 

In most of our daycares, that is not what we see.  Even if the ratio is good, the groups are too large - there is a different between one caregiver who is in a small unit with five or six kids, and two or three adults with 10 or 15 kids.  The former is like a family (especially if it is mixed ages), the latter two are institutional.  And daycare/nursery school tend to have high teacher turnover.

[wintermom]

Hmm.  I would say that time with adults is more important than we seem to want to admit, though I don't think that is the same as free play time - I don't think adults need to play with kids.

 

 

Not what I meant. Kids need time with their parents; they don't simply need more play time.  The parents can be in the room, or in the house monitoring for safety and such, but the fact that it's the parent and not a stranger is the key issue. 

 

Not many people, especially liberal university-types, are willing to even address this issue. So as much as free play is nice and all, it's the time in the home with mom and dad that's important for pre-schoolers. 

[SKL]

And some people underestimate the benefits of time with people who are not the parents.

[Soror]

Thanks for the read, loved it. I don't understand why so many downplay the importance of the "work" and challenge of free play for kids. We think so narrowly in terms of intelligence and education. 

[Barb_]

Not what I meant. Kids need time with their parents; they don't simply need more play time. The parents can be in the room, or in the house monitoring for safety and such, but the fact that it's the parent and not a stranger is the key issue.

 

Not many people, especially liberal university-types, are willing to even address this issue. So as much as free play is nice and all, it's the time in the home with mom and dad that's important for pre-schoolers.

Why? Why is that the key? I'm not following. i don't really agree with you but I want to be sure I understand your premise.

[wintermom]

Why? Why is that the key? I'm not following. i don't really agree with you but I want to be sure I understand your premise.

 

The reason I believe that the parent is the key is mainly the age of the children mentioned in this article, pre-schoolers, and the setting, not home. Even if a parent brought their child into a setting that was high in the "mental health classroom climate scale," it's still not as relaxing and secure for most young children than their own home.  And no professional, no matter how well trained in early childhood education, is going to love and care for a child like a parent will, or know the child as well, or be as willing to do whatever it takes for the child to thrive. Being a homeschooling forum, just have a read through what many, many parents do for the well-being of their children. It goes so far and beyond any classroom teacher. And the opportunity for free play, though very important for young children, is a far second to spending lots and lots of time with a parent. 

 

I'm also guessing, with the author's self-proclaimed liberal slant, that these pre-schools she's talking about would be full-day, 5 days a week programs, with options for extra child-care before and after for the convenience of the parent. Just a strong hunch. ;)

Edited February 16, 2016 by wintermom

[Barb_]

You're mixing your controversies. The article addressed the developmentally inappropriate expectations of many preschools. The author wasn't trying to convince anyone that the proper preschool is better than a home setting, just that we need better preschool options. My son has perfectly lovely memories of his Montessori preschool. He's almost 11 and looks back on his time spent there very fondly. Some children would prefer to remain home with mom or dad, but other children (especially extroverted, high energy children) actually do better with the stimulation and structure a good preschool can provide. Especially if that child is a younger child in a busy homeschooling family where the child may be hungry for more activity and companionship than he is getting. Spending time with a parent, while important isn't the end all be all 24/7 in the preschool years.

[wintermom]

You're mixing your controversies. The article addressed the developmentally inappropriate expectations of many preschools. The author wasn't trying to convince anyone that the proper preschool is better than a home setting, just that we need better preschool options. My son has perfectly lovely memories of his Montessori preschool. He's almost 11 and looks back on his time spent there very fondly. Some children would prefer to remain home with mom or dad, but other children (especially extroverted, high energy children) actually do better with the stimulation and structure a good preschool can provide. Especially if that child is a younger child in a busy homeschooling family where the child may be hungry for more activity and companionship than he is getting. Spending time with a parent, while important isn't the end all be all 24/7 in the preschool years.

 

Not really, because the more focused studies and research on support for early childhood education, the stronger the push to get young children in "school" earlier and for longer days. The next big push, that's already happening and been happening in many, many countries in the world, is for the early education to be paid for by the government.  You may not have noticed this in the US, because for now, it's people choosing to pay for these places themselves, but look around you. It's been happening in Europe for decades, spreading to Canada, and I'm not sure about Australia and NZ. 

Edited February 16, 2016 by wintermom

[Bluegoat]

Not really, because the more focused studies and research on support for early childhood education, the stronger the push to get young children in "school" earlier and for longer days. The next big push, that's already happening and been happening in many, many countries in the world, is for the early education to be paid for by the government.  You may not have noticed this in the US, because for now, it's people choosing to pay for these places themselves, but look around you. It's been happening in Europe for decades, spreading to Canada, and I'm not sure about Australia and NZ. 

 

I think you are mixing your controversies as well - this kind of research is just as applicable to at home environments.  It's essentially about free play, not pre-school.

 

But do keep in mind that many pre-schools are not full time - they are two or three afternoons or mornings a week. Even with a parent home, that is something very helpful for those who have no one around to help (no family nearby) and many kids enjoy it.

 

European publicly funded daycares are generally quite good, and many of them have small mixed age groups with a single caregiver who they stay with through all their years - these are people who have gone to the trouble to get masters degrees in ECE.  I think it is hard to compare this to the care that is available in North America. 

 

It actually isn't my preferred model in many ways, but you know, given that in Canada and especially the US there is no move to make it possible for a parent to take a career break or to have one-income families as normative, I think it would probably be far preferable to what is happening now.

[MBM]

It is true that the US is pushing for earlier preschool for at-risk children. The programs are more of an intervention to prevent future problems. The goal is not academic development but to teach self-control and other so-called soft skills by adults who consistently care for the children meeting their emotional and physical needs. Doing this has an economic benefit to society and turns out to be less expensive in the long run. This is the work of Nobel laureate James Heckman, who has devoted himself to studying the issue of inequality.

 

http://heckmanequation.org/content/resource/invest-early-childhood-development-reduce-deficits-strengthen-economy

 

 

[Renai]

Actually, the push in the US is for universal preschool (or at least preK) care. As a state preK teacher, I'm in the thick of it. I read the research, get the legislation emails (for state and NAEYC), etc., for what is going on in my state and federally. It's not just for at-risk students, although the initial focus often points there. Most programs in our state are half-day, but there is a push to get more full-day programs. I refuse to work in a full-day program, btw. (Interestingly, one of the many reasons I began homeschooling is because they had phased out half-day kindergarten a year or two before my oldest of K age.) Thankfully, our state pushes for play-based prek care anyway, but yes the pressure to push down academics is there - from the elementary grades.

 

I don't think wintermom is mixing controversies at all. The research out there is being used to say, "See, we need more programs out there that are more play-based." It's not being interpreted as "this is what parents should be doing with their kids."

[MBM]

Actually, the push in the US is for universal preschool (or at least preK) care. As a state preK teacher, I'm in the thick of it. I read the research, get the legislation emails (for state and NAEYC), etc., for what is going on in my state and federally. It's not just for at-risk students, although the initial focus often points there. Most programs in our state are half-day, but there is a push to get more full-day programs. I refuse to work in a full-day program, btw. (Interestingly, one of the many reasons I began homeschooling is because they had phased out half-day kindergarten a year or two before my oldest of K age.) Thankfully, our state pushes for play-based prek care anyway, but yes the pressure to push down academics is there - from the elementary grades.

 

I don't think wintermom is mixing controversies at all. The research out there is being used to say, "See, we need more programs out there that are more play-based." It's not being interpreted as "this is what parents should be doing with their kids."

 

Well, now I'm curious. Can you provide more information about the push for universal preschool? Would it be mandatory? My kids are all young adults now -- ages 18 to 31 -- so maybe times have changed.

 

I live in Illinois and never once felt pressured to put my children in preschool; however, all three did attend play-based preschools which they enjoyed. My husband traveled a lot when they were little. Neither of us had any family nearby, and so I got a break and my kids had fun. Win-win, IMO. They are all well-adjusted adults now and I don't believe their preschool experiences had a negative effect.

 

I do have reservations about pushing academics too early and mandatory preschool, though.

[Barb_]

Not really, because the more focused studies and research on support for early childhood education, the stronger the push to get young children in "school" earlier and for longer days. The next big push, that's already happening and been happening in many, many countries in the world, is for the early education to be paid for by the government. You may not have noticed this in the US, because for now, it's people choosing to pay for these places themselves, but look around you. It's been happening in Europe for decades, spreading to Canada, and I'm not sure about Australia and NZ.

Slippery slope fallacy.

[Barb_]

Actually, the push in the US is for universal preschool (or at least preK) care. As a state preK teacher, I'm in the thick of it. I read the research, get the legislation emails (for state and NAEYC), etc., for what is going on in my state and federally. It's not just for at-risk students, although the initial focus often points there. Most programs in our state are half-day, but there is a push to get more full-day programs. I refuse to work in a full-day program, btw. (Interestingly, one of the many reasons I began homeschooling is because they had phased out half-day kindergarten a year or two before my oldest of K age.) Thankfully, our state pushes for play-based prek care anyway, but yes the pressure to push down academics is there - from the elementary grades.

 

I don't think wintermom is mixing controversies at all. The research out there is being used to say, "See, we need more programs out there that are more play-based." It's not being interpreted as "this is what parents should be doing with their kids."

We actually do need more play based preschool programs. You're right when you say this research isn't intended to guide parents.

 

Whether or not the US government or any other government pushes universal mandatory preschool is an entirely different post. It's an illogical leap to go from,

A. I believe preschool is bad for all kids

B. Therefore preschool should be stopped

C. Therefore universal preschool is particularly egregious

D. Studies into the positive results of play based preschool will probably be used to to encourage the passage of a universal preschool bill

E. Therefore we shouldn't be studying how play based childcare is beneficial *for kids already attending preschool*

[Bluegoat]

Actually, the push in the US is for universal preschool (or at least preK) care. As a state preK teacher, I'm in the thick of it. I read the research, get the legislation emails (for state and NAEYC), etc., for what is going on in my state and federally. It's not just for at-risk students, although the initial focus often points there. Most programs in our state are half-day, but there is a push to get more full-day programs. I refuse to work in a full-day program, btw. (Interestingly, one of the many reasons I began homeschooling is because they had phased out half-day kindergarten a year or two before my oldest of K age.) Thankfully, our state pushes for play-based prek care anyway, but yes the pressure to push down academics is there - from the elementary grades.

 

I don't think wintermom is mixing controversies at all. The research out there is being used to say, "See, we need more programs out there that are more play-based." It's not being interpreted as "this is what parents should be doing with their kids."

 

But as long as there are pre-schools and daycares, we need people saying - these need to be play-based.  I don't think that this kind of research in particular is what argues for more programs - people do that by other means.  Not doing research into what is appropriate isn't going to make the need for childcare disapear.

[Renai]

We actually do need more play based preschool programs. You're right when you say this research isn't intended to guide parents.

 

Whether or not the US government or any other government pushes universal mandatory preschool is an entirely different post. It's an illogical leap to go from,

A. I believe preschool is bad for all kids

B. Therefore preschool should be stopped

C. Therefore universal preschool is particularly egregious

D. Studies into the positive results of play based preschool will probably be used to to encourage the passage of a universal preschool bill

E. Therefore we shouldn't be studying how play based childcare is beneficial *for kids already attending preschool*

 

I didn't see anyone make this leap. I'm not sure where that idea is coming from. 

 

I was correcting the idea that this research is not being used to push the idea of the need for more programs overall. There is definitely a need for more program types that are play-based.

[Renai]

But as long as there are pre-schools and daycares, we need people saying - these need to be play-based.  I don't think that this kind of research in particular is what argues for more programs - people do that by other means.  Not doing research into what is appropriate isn't going to make the need for childcare disapear.

 

The bolded was my point. People use this research to argue more need for programs, and right now the push is for universal. I never said the need for childcare would disappear. Why would I insinuate such? I work in the industry. I happen to like what I do (most of the time, lol!). 

 

The article is about play-based learning. Someone mentioned that this type of research is used to argue for more preschools - play-based or otherwise. I was agreeing that the notion was correct, because it is happening as I type. 

 

Whether a child is at home or at a preschool, they learn through play. Period. The ones reading the research on this mostly aren't parents, unfortunately. Many teachers are trying to convince the parents about this value (precisely because they aren't reading this research, right?). The research isn't going to stop though (thankfully), because there are big believers worldwide about the value of play in learning. (I was in a science workshop a couple of years ago learning about center of gravity...and stuff...and one of the 6th grade teachers commented on how the tinker toy play we were doing would be valuable in his class for learning those concepts.)

 

On the other side of the universal preschool argument, is the argument that kindergarten and first grade need to be reminded that they are also early childhood (thus having need of more developmentally-appropriate academics). It's the research that is trying to push this information into the elementary grades. 

[Barb_]

I didn't see anyone make this leap. I'm not sure where that idea is coming from.

 

I was correcting the idea that this research is not being used to push the idea of the need for more programs overall. There is definitely a need for more program types that are play-based.

I was responding to this quote by wintermom:

 

"because the more focused studies and research on support for early childhood education, the stronger the push to get young children in "school" earlier and for longer days. The next big push, that's already happening and been happening in many, many countries in the world, is for the early education to be paid for by the government. "

 

This quote came directly after winter mom's assertion that in all cases, children are better off with their parents than they are in preschool "even if the parent is simply working nearby in the same room."

 

I'm actually in agreement that the push for universal preschool is the next logical step. ESPECIALLY if we allow the continual trickle down of early academics. That would be the only way politicians could sell universal preschool: "If your children don't attend, they won't be ready for the rigors of today's kindergarten!!!" Fear is the only thing that trumps finances for most people and, and universal preschool will be incredibly expensive.

 

An increase in play based preschool would be hugely beneficial for parents who must work or would like to have an outlet for their little ones. Heck, I'd make a lot of sacrifices to afford a play based morning for my 7yo. But I think it follows logically that if anything, research in favor of more playtime will reduce the push for universal preschool. It'll be too hard for politicians to sell it to their constituents (see $$$)

[Barb_]

The bolded was my point. People use this research to argue more need for programs, and right now the push is for universal. I never said the need for childcare would disappear. Why would I insinuate such? I work in the industry. I happen to like what I do (most of the time, lol!).

 

The article is about play-based learning. Someone mentioned that this type of research is used to argue for more preschools - play-based or otherwise. I was agreeing that the notion was correct, because it is happening as I type.

 

Whether a child is at home or at a preschool, they learn through play. Period. The ones reading the research on this mostly aren't parents, unfortunately. Many teachers are trying to convince the parents about this value (precisely because they aren't reading this research, right?). The research isn't going to stop though (thankfully), because there are big believers worldwide about the value of play in learning. (I was in a science workshop a couple of years ago learning about center of gravity...and stuff...and one of the 6th grade teachers commented on how the tinker toy play we were doing would be valuable in his class for learning those concepts.)

 

On the other side of the universal preschool argument, is the argument that kindergarten and first grade need to be reminded that they are also early childhood (thus having need of more developmentally-appropriate academics). It's the research that is trying to push this information into the elementary grades.

Renai, did you read the linked article? Because the research is being used to criticize the aims of current programs, not to argue for more of the same. Edited February 16, 2016 by Barb_

[LibraryLover]

Preschoolers *need* to play. Free play, with risk, alone and with other children, and without adult interference.  Adults need to step back and observe.   The most gifted of children benefit from playing- play grows the brain.

 

http://www.cbeebies.com/za/grown-ups/helpful-articles?article=schemas-and-play

 

http://susan.sean.geek.nz/Schemas%20in%20Areas%20of%20Play.pdf

 

http://www.nature-play.co.uk/blog/schemas-in-childrens-play

 

 

Edited February 16, 2016 by LibraryLover

[LibraryLover]

And this blog: 

 

http://teachertomsblog.blogspot.com/

 

Continually addresses the need for *real* play, real work.

 

This is a preschool community. I know not everyone agrees with preschool, but deep relationships in such a community is important to many people. 

Edited February 16, 2016 by LibraryLover

[Renai]

Well, now I'm curious. Can you provide more information about the push for universal preschool? Would it be mandatory? My kids are all young adults now -- ages 18 to 31 -- so maybe times have changed.

 

I live in Illinois and never once felt pressured to put my children in preschool; however, all three did attend play-based preschools which they enjoyed. My husband traveled a lot when they were little. Neither of us had any family nearby, and so I got a break and my kids had fun. Win-win, IMO. They are all well-adjusted adults now and I don't believe their preschool experiences had a negative effect.

 

I do have reservations about pushing academics too early and mandatory preschool, though.

 

Apparently, all my kids have gone home because I'm hanging out here, now. lol

 

Right now, the "push" is more about availability rather than obligatory. Basically, the ones that can, do. I believe a pp mentioned that those with the means put their children in (paid) preschool. Those children have an advantage over those that don't (that research shows the advantage mostly sizzles by 3rd grade...). Preschool is needed for many families. Having universal preschool available to all - high-quality, preferably play-based - would make it fair for everyone. That is the argument. 

 

As a teacher who homeschools her oldest and has the youngest in preK with her, it is something I watch. It wasn't too long ago that kindergarten was optional. (Technically, in many places it still is, considering the mandatory schooling age starts somewhere around 6-8 years of age in some states.)

[Renai]

I was responding to this quote by wintermom:

 

"because the more focused studies and research on support for early childhood education, the stronger the push to get young children in "school" earlier and for longer days. The next big push, that's already happening and been happening in many, many countries in the world, is for the early education to be paid for by the government. "

 

This quote came directly after winter mom's assertion that in all cases, children are better off with their parents than they are in preschool "even if the parent is simply working nearby in the same room."

 

I'm actually in agreement that the push for universal preschool is the next logical step. ESPECIALLY if we allow the continual trickle down of early academics. That would be the only way politicians could sell universal preschool: "If your children don't attend, they won't be ready for the rigors of today's kindergarten!!!" Fear is the only thing that trumps finances for most people and, and universal preschool will be incredibly expensive.

 

An increase in play based preschool would be hugely beneficial for parents who must work or would like to have an outlet for their little ones. Heck, I'd make a lot of sacrifices to afford a play based morning for my 7yo. But I think it follows logically that if anything, research in favor of more playtime will reduce the push for universal preschool. It'll be too hard for politicians to sell it to their constituents (see $$$)

 

:iagree:  Right now, it is fear pushing many families and preschools to put more pressure on preschool children. I touched on it a bit in a different post. Interestingly, in our state the push is more government-funded, play-based programs. Reggio Emilia is highly regarded (follow the child's lead).

 

In fact, you may be surprised at how play-based programs are received in some areas. Basically the thought is, if they don't play here (at this program, and learn at the same time), when will they get time to play? Many conversations have been had about how more children today are more acquainted with the latest shows and mindcraft, than mud and shadows.

 

But, it's not just the politicians that need to be convinced, it's many parents. And as I stated in a previous post, many parents aren't the ones reading this research.

[Renai]

Renai, did you read the linked article? Because the research is being used to criticize the aims of current programs, not to argue for more of the same.

 

Actually, I did. However, I got more into these posts, so it's probably morphed into something else. I'd have to go back and re-read. Which I might do once I get home. 

[MBM]

I did a little searching but could not find anything suggesting that universal preschool would be mandatory.

 

The push for universal preschool appears to be tied at least somewhat to Heckman's work and possibly also the 2014 report put out by the Sutton Trust that showed that 40 percent of children in the US do not have secure attachment with even one adult caregiver. Insecure attachment affects a child's ability to learn and function well in society. Single parent families with little or no extended family/outside help and families who find themselves in dire straits could be helped by daycares that give them a break from child care. That might be the reason for the push.

 

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S39/59/37A89/index.xml?section=topstories

 

[LibraryLover]

.

Edited February 17, 2016 by LibraryLover

[Bluegoat]

The bolded was my point. People use this research to argue more need for programs, and right now the push is for universal. I never said the need for childcare would disappear. Why would I insinuate such? I work in the industry. I happen to like what I do (most of the time, lol!). 

 

The article is about play-based learning. Someone mentioned that this type of research is used to argue for more preschools - play-based or otherwise. I was agreeing that the notion was correct, because it is happening as I type. 

 

Whether a child is at home or at a preschool, they learn through play. Period. The ones reading the research on this mostly aren't parents, unfortunately. Many teachers are trying to convince the parents about this value (precisely because they aren't reading this research, right?). The research isn't going to stop though (thankfully), because there are big believers worldwide about the value of play in learning. (I was in a science workshop a couple of years ago learning about center of gravity...and stuff...and one of the 6th grade teachers commented on how the tinker toy play we were doing would be valuable in his class for learning those concepts.)

 

On the other side of the universal preschool argument, is the argument that kindergarten and first grade need to be reminded that they are also early childhood (thus having need of more developmentally-appropriate academics). It's the research that is trying to push this information into the elementary grades. 

 

I think I am not understanding you.  If people are using this as an argument to have more kids in pre-school, it is a stupid thing to argue - it is also not a good reason to stop this kind of research, which seems to be what wintermom would like.

 

I generally see the arguments for putting kids in pre-school being related either to at risk kids, or boosting academic achievement.  Which are not quite the same as saying play will boost academic achievement.

 

It would be nice if the ps system would go back to treating K and possibly even 1 as an ECE area.

[Bluegoat]

I did a little searching but could not find anything suggesting that universal preschool would be mandatory.

 

The push for universal preschool appears to be tied at least somewhat to Heckman's work and possibly also the 2014 report put out by the Sutton Trust that showed that 40 percent of children in the US do not have secure attachment with even one adult caregiver. Insecure attachment affects a child's ability to learn and function well in society. Single parent families with little or no extended family/outside help and families who find themselves in dire straits could be helped by daycares that give them a break from child care. That might be the reason for the push.

 

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S39/59/37A89/index.xml?section=topstories

 

I do think that where universal pre-school becomes a reality, pressures to use it arise, simply because of the economic realities.  It becomes much more difficult to justify losing an income.

 

That being said, in those countries, in practice parents are often able to spend more time as stay-at-home parents than in the US with its rather paltry maternity leaves and total lack of parental leave.

[Guest]

Ha! I just happened on this. Evidently this is even older info than I thought.

 

But even if it be conceded that free play with appropriate playthings is good for little children, since it may make them resourceful and observant and independent, it does not logically follow that it covers the whole ground that it is a substitute for "lessons" that it gives the child the "tools of learning." Of course, it is obvious that play-schemes may be made an excuse for making children swallow sugar-coated pellets of arithmetic and reading and writing. Devices of this sort to beguile the unsuspecting child have multiplied like weeds in recent classrooms. They are largely responsible for the common suspicion that freedom within a schoolroom must mean either coaxing or license. They are devices, nothing more. And they are a bit unworthy of the situation. It is not that the play of children affords an opportunity to slip in unnoticed something which an adult values, but which the child would repudiate if he were not duped. It is that interpretive play, constructive play, depends in its very essence upon the same relations, whether expressed in human terms or in books, upon which our real world depends. In order to carry on organized life, we find it necessary to use symbols. These symbols have grown up just because they are necessary to facilitate the processes of the world. The same necessity will be felt by the children in any play which reproduces these processes. And the use of symbols will grow up in the same natural way. Children cannot reproduce an environment which implies a number sense without having that number sense; children cannot do exact bench work without measuring; children cannot play store without arithmetic. This is less true of reading

and writing.

      It remains to be determined whether this means that reading and writing must be taught formally or that reading and writing are a later necessity for children. Our own experiment in this field seems to indicate that both of these contentions will be found true and that formal reading and writing come as a welcome opportunity at the age of eight or nine to children who have enjoyed a rich preparatory experience of constructive and interpretive play.

      Such an experience, while it does not supply the necessary technique, makes definite contributions toward its acquisition and, a fact of greater import, ensures the immediate use of any tool acquired for practical, purposeful ends. Thus the free use of crayons in big sweeps on large sheets of paper, the blackboard, or the floor, gives preliminary skill and confidence in manipulation. Early drawing may contribute by clearing up visual images. Enterprising play and work experiences demand clear and definite oral expression, ever the basis for clear written expression. After an extended period of such preliminary experiences children are ready to put real effort into the mechanics involved. In addition to the acquisition of contributory habits and skills they invariably bring to the situation considerable "picked up" knowledge of technique. Thus equipped they should learn to read through reading, and find no difficulty in using the tool of writing for thought expression.

 

 

[SKL]

Maybe it's regional, because where I live, there is no push to get kids writing at desks all day at preschool age.  Many kids do go to preschool, but it's often part-time and the purpose is more traditional - to be with other kids, to get used to separating from Mom, to develop language and other global skills that will be important in school and life.  And of course, there are lots of kids whose parents work and need to be outside the home for part of the day.

 

Sure, preschools tend to introduce ABCs etc.  Kids happen to like ABCs.  Even when I was a tot almost 50 years ago, the ABCs and 123s were pretty popular among preschool-aged kids.  I have yet to meet a kid who sees/hears ABCs and collapses from the stress.  :P

 

I really think the lack of free play opportunities is because of rigid rules that prevent giving young kids a little space.  The state has rules for institutional preschools, but even at home, parents are discouraged from allowing independent play in a variety of contexts.

[ReadingMama1214]

Maybe it's regional, because where I live, there is no push to get kids writing at desks all day at preschool age. Many kids do go to preschool, but it's often part-time and the purpose is more traditional - to be with other kids, to get used to separating from Mom, to develop language and other global skills that will be important in school and life. And of course, there are lots of kids whose parents work and need to be outside the home for part of the day.

 

Sure, preschools tend to introduce ABCs etc. Kids happen to like ABCs. Even when I was a tot almost 50 years ago, the ABCs and 123s were pretty popular among preschool-aged kids. I have yet to meet a kid who sees/hears ABCs and collapses from the stress. :P

 

I really think the lack of free play opportunities is because of rigid rules that prevent giving young kids a little space. The state has rules for institutional preschools, but even at home, parents are discouraged from allowing independent play in a variety of contexts.

Our public schools offer preschool on a sliding scale. It costs anywhere between being completely free and a couple hundred a month. ECE3 is 1/2 day typically and ECE4 is full day. Both are heavily play based. They focus mainly on life skills, exploration, play, social skills, understanding the world around you, and some early academics. They do practice letters, numbers, basic math concepts, writing, etc. but it's a small part of the day. They also have recess even though the day is 3 hours long.

[Tsuga]

Not really, because the more focused studies and research on support for early childhood education, the stronger the push to get young children in "school" earlier and for longer days. The next big push, that's already happening and been happening in many, many countries in the world, is for the early education to be paid for by the government.  You may not have noticed this in the US, because for now, it's people choosing to pay for these places themselves, but look around you. It's been happening in Europe for decades, spreading to Canada, and I'm not sure about Australia and NZ. 

 

My daughter went to universal pre-school in Rheinland-Pfalz from 2.5 to 3.5.

 

She spent about 80% of her time running around in the dirt and playing games, 10% of her time playing board games, and 10% of her time singing songs.

 

My friends' kids who went to school in France did much of the same.

 

I think you are wrong about what kids are doing at these "schools".

[ReadingMama1214]

My daughter went to universal pre-school in Rheinland-Pfalz from 2.5 to 3.5.

 

She spent about 80% of her time running around in the dirt and playing games, 10% of her time playing board games, and 10% of her time singing songs.

 

My friends' kids who went to school in France did much of the same.

 

I think you are wrong about what kids are doing at these "schools".

I agree. From what I've heard about the preschools in countries that offer such programs, they sound fantastic. Much more like how preschool should be. I actually appreciate the idea of universal preschool. Not for the early academics, but more for the childcare aspects. The nations that have such programs are much more family friendly and kiss automatically have more time with their parents because of the lower cost of childcare and the excellent maternity/paternity leave.

 

What fails to be seen is that many parents cannot afford the luxury of being stay at home parents. Even if they believed their kids are best at home, they financially need both parents to work. The outrageous cost of childcare also limits some families in the type of daycare/preschool they use. If we really want to see children spending more time in the home, a lot more than just the education model needs to change.

[Barb_]

I agree. From what I've heard about the preschools in countries that offer such programs, they sound fantastic. Much more like how preschool should be. I actually appreciate the idea of universal preschool. Not for the early academics, but more for the childcare aspects. The nations that have such programs are much more family friendly and kiss automatically have more time with their parents because of the lower cost of childcare and the excellent maternity/paternity leave.

 

What fails to be seen is that many parents cannot afford the luxury of being stay at home parents. Even if they believed their kids are best at home, they financially need both parents to work. The outrageous cost of childcare also limits some families in the type of daycare/preschool they use. If we really want to see children spending more time in the home, a lot more than just the education model needs to change.

You make a good point. I should clarify that I'm against compulsory preschool, but good universal preschool should be available

[MBM]

I do think that where universal pre-school becomes a reality, pressures to use it arise, simply because of the economic realities.  It becomes much more difficult to justify losing an income.

 

That being said, in those countries, in practice parents are often able to spend more time as stay-at-home parents than in the US with its rather paltry maternity leaves and total lack of parental leave.

 

The US is only beginning to acknowledge that what happens in the first few years of life is important. This is when an infant forms attachment with a caregiver and however they attach can affect them their entire life. The early years are when much of the lower brain is developing and what occurs between a child and caregiver physically shapes it for better or for worse.. For many, according to the Adverse Childhood Experiences study, it's for the worse and the cost to the individual and society is great. The right kind of therapy can help but it's not easy or quick -- or available to all.

 

http://acestoohigh.com/2012/10/03/the-adverse-childhood-experiences-study-the-largest-most-important-public-health-study-you-never-heard-of-began-in-an-obesity-clinic/

 

Ideally, a child should be with family who are attuned to their child's physical and emotional needs but for those who can't, a preschool with developmentally appropriate activities run by caring adults is a good option.