"Research Reveals Negative Effects of Academic Preschools and Kindergartens"

[Corraleno]

Interesting article in Psychology Today: multiple research studies show that although academic-focused (versus play-focused) preschools & kindergartens may lead to higher performance on standardized tests in K and 1st, by 4th grade these advantages are not only lost but often reversed, with students who were in play-focused programs doing better. Early academic programs also seem to have significant negative effects on children's later social and emotional development, compared to play-based programs. 

 

Early Academic Training Produces Long-Term Harm: Research Reveals Negative Effects of Academic Preschools and Kindergartens

 

This probably isn't news to most homeschoolers, who are more likely to follow the child's lead and not push academics too hard or too early, but it's a good reminder that trying to "keep up with the local PS" is neither necessary nor particularly healthy for kids. Playing really is better for them in the long run — socially, emotionally, and academically.

[Kiara.I]

I'm curious how Montessori would compare. I don't think it's what they mean by "academic", and yet many people would consider it to be academic. It's certainly not play-based... Although in another sense, it is precisely play-based.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

[snowbeltmom]

I'm curious how Montessori would compare. I don't think it's what they mean by "academic", and yet many people would consider it to be academic. It's certainly not play-based... Although in another sense, it is precisely play-based.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

I was wondering that as well since my kids attended a Montessori school when they were younger. From skimming the article, it looks like Montessori would not fit the study's definition of academic, which is worksheet-based and teacher-led

 

ETA: Definition from the article: Direct Instruction (where the focus was on teaching reading, writing, and math, using worksheets and tests). Definitely not Montessori's approach. My kids never saw a worksheet or test until we moved and they had their brief stinit in public school.

Edited December 30, 2017 by snowbeltmom

[Corraleno]

I'm curious how Montessori would compare. I don't think it's what they mean by "academic", and yet many people would consider it to be academic. It's certainly not play-based... Although in another sense, it is precisely play-based.

 

 

I was wondering that as well since my kids attended a Montessori school when they were younger. From skimming the article, it looks like Montessori would not fit the study's definition of academic, which is worksheet-based and teacher-led

 

ETA: Definition from the article: Direct Instruction (where the focus was on teaching reading, writing, and math, using worksheets and tests). Definitely not Montessori's approach. My kids never saw a worksheet or test until we moved and they had their brief stinit in public school.

In the Montessori preschool my kids attended, the 3-5 yr old class (which included kindergarten) was not very academic. Kids who showed interest in the phonics boxes, or sandpaper letters, or whatever, would be given help and instruction, but kids who just wanted to cut carrots and pour rice and wash the dolly could do that, too. There was definitely more emphasis on social/emotional development (kindness, sharing, thoughtfulness) than structured academic learning, and the academic learning was very play-based anyway.

 

Personally, I think the idea of very young children having their work marked "right" or "wrong," and assigned a grade, can be really destructive. It can be crushing for a little 4 or 5 yr old to see something they worked hard on marked with red Xs. Kids take things so personally at that age, and are likely to associate "wrong" with "bad," and assume that "wrong" answers mean they are "bad" at school and therefore stupid. Instead of feeling free to experiment and explore, kids can become anxious and fearful about making "mistakes" or doing something "wrong."

 

It also shifts the emphasis away from cooperation (playing well with others) towards a kind of competitiveness that I don't think is healthy at that age. Especially since a child who is simply not developmentally ready to read at 5 really can't change that, so kids end up being praised and rewarded (with good grades) for things they really have no control over at that point. Instead of feeling good about themselves for being kind and helpful and playing well with others, they feel good or bad about themselves based on how they perform on arbitrary tasks that may or may not be developmentally appropriate.

[snowbeltmom]

In the Montessori preschool my kids attended, the 3-5 yr old class (which included kindergarten) was not very academic. Kids who showed interest in the phonics boxes, or sandpaper letters, or whatever, would be given help and instruction, but kids who just wanted to cut carrots and pour rice and wash the dolly could do that, too. There was definitely more emphasis on social/emotional development (kindness, sharing, thoughtfulness) than structured academic learning, and the academic learning was very play-based anyway.

 

Personally, I think the idea of very young children having their work marked "right" or "wrong," and assigned a grade, can be really destructive. It can be crushing for a little 4 or 5 yr old to see something they worked hard on marked with red Xs. Kids take things so personally at that age, and are likely to associate "wrong" with "bad," and assume that "wrong" answers mean they are "bad" at school and therefore stupid. Instead of feeling free to experiment and explore, kids can become anxious and fearful about making "mistakes" or doing something "wrong."

 

It also shifts the emphasis away from cooperation (playing well with others) towards a kind of competitiveness that I don't think is healthy at that age. Especially since a child who is simply not developmentally ready to read at 5 really can't change that, so kids end up being praised and rewarded (with good grades) for things they really have no control over at that point. Instead of feeling good about themselves for being kind and helpful and playing well with others, they feel good or bad about themselves based on how they perform on arbitrary tasks that may or may not be developmentally appropriate.

I agree. I really think letter grades are a detriment to learning.

 

Another bonus of the Montessori system was that the kids could move at their own pace and no one cared what anyone else was doing. It was a shock to me when we moved and my kids started attending our public school. I couldn't believe how many times another mom would come up to me at a school function or class birthday party and ask me what level books my D was reading. I even had another mom go through my daughter's assignment notebook when my daughter went back to this mom's house after school on a play date. The level of competitiveness among the moms comparing the kids was appalling.

 

As an aside relating to playing games: During my son's interview process for this summer, he was asked what type of games he likes to play. We have always been a big card and board game family, so my son had a lot of different games to talk about. He is going to be in a training program this summer and every afternoon the interns are going to play strategy games, which I guess goes to show that playing games aren't just for the preschool group.

Edited December 31, 2017 by snowbeltmom

[fralala]

Now, what's interesting is that we can all (pretty much?) agree on this when it comes to preschool and K, but at what age do we change our opinion? (I ask because this is from the blog of Peter Gray, whose latest post on John Holt demonstrates pretty well his strong belief that children of all ages should be able to control their learning.) What is the magic age when formal lessons and worksheets become defensible, and hours of self-directed play should disappear? Is it acceptable for kids to spend only 15 minutes in a daily recess, as long as they've turned 6, as my local school district seems to believe, and to have homework and to take standardized tests?

 

Another thought. One of the sad things about the term "academic" as an adjective defining early educational experiences is that it's come to mean something like "boring, dull stuff poorly done by someone whose own education was lacking." (I do not say this to belittle preschool teachers, but rather to acknowledge that as a society we do wrong by thinking that being in charge of children under a certain age-- and I don't even know what that age would be, perhaps it even includes middle school and high school!-- doesn't require academic knowledge so much as training in how to manage large groups of kids.)

 

I still think we must struggle as a society that cares about all children to provide what our children are blessed with: homes where parents talk to them, listen to them, read to them, play games, and so forth. But thinking this could be replicated by formal lessons and worksheets seems to me a pipe dream. Is part of where we go wrong a narrow, flawed definition of what it means to be "academic" in early childhood, and the treatment of "academic" vs. "play" as polar opposites?

[8filltheheart]

This is not new information. Back when I was in college there was research galore stating the exact same thing. It didn't/doesn't fit the popular narrative, so it is just ignored. The linked article also doesn't get into detailed specifics. There is plenty of research on the effects of dramatic and imaginative play compared to academics/directed/regulated activities on the development of higher-order critical thinking skills. That research is equally ignored.

 

I have written numerous posts over the yrs on this forum about this very topic, and even here, the overwhelming majority believe that kids who don't have exposure to academics during preschool will be at a long-term disadvantage. The most prevalent position that has been argued is that kids who don't enter K reading will never catch up academically with their peers who did. That belief, that preschool and K academics set the long-term stage for academic progress, is deeply ingrained in modern thought, and you are definitely considered a fringe minority if you don't embrace that model of early childhood education.

 

I was blessed with a fabulous professor as a mentor in college who encouraged me to research dramatic/imaginative play and cognitive development as my major research project. That research completely influenced how I parent and how I educate my kids. Self-directed self-entertainment via play is my goal for my young children. It isn't just something I flippantly say we do in our family. It is a deliberate parenting decision. I am glad I had the background I did bc it has definitely made a long-term impact on my kids' lives and my homeschool philosophy.

Edited December 31, 2017 by 8FillTheHeart

[Sandwalker]

Now, what's interesting is that we can all (pretty much?) agree on this when it comes to preschool and K, but at what age do we change our opinion? (I ask because this is from the blog of Peter Gray, whose latest post on John Holt demonstrates pretty well his strong belief that children of all ages should be able to control their learning.) What is the magic age when formal lessons and worksheets become defensible, and hours of self-directed play should disappear? Is it acceptable for kids to spend only 15 minutes in a daily recess, as long as they've turned 6, as my local school district seems to believe, and to have homework and to take standardized tests?

 

Another thought. One of the sad things about the term "academic" as an adjective defining early educational experiences is that it's come to mean something like "boring, dull stuff poorly done by someone whose own education was lacking." (I do not say this to belittle preschool teachers, but rather to acknowledge that as a society we do wrong by thinking that being in charge of children under a certain age-- and I don't even know what that age would be, perhaps it even includes middle school and high school!-- doesn't require academic knowledge so much as training in how to manage large groups of kids.)

 

I still think we must struggle as a society that cares about all children to provide what our children are blessed with: homes where parents talk to them, listen to them, read to them, play games, and so forth. But thinking this could be replicated by formal lessons and worksheets seems to me a pipe dream. Is part of where we go wrong a narrow, flawed definition of what it means to be "academic" in early childhood, and the treatment of "academic" vs. "play" as polar opposites?

QFT and sadness that it is the truth

[freesia]

My. Background and experiences are very similar to 8. I remember articles into the 90s supporting developmental play. My classroom (grades1/2) was set up for supporting play via a grant. But then suddenly that all changed. I had already left teaching and started hearing about "all the research" that supported Academic pre-school. I was gobsmacked as it ran counter to all I had seen. It crystallized further our decision to homeschool. And the focus on play has certainly not held my kids back.

 

I remember discussing my dd with a friend. Her dd started reading at 4. My dd didn't read well until 7. My friend was shocked that I believed it wouldn't matter a bit in two years bc she saw reading as linear--once you were ahead you kept being ahead. My dd caught up to her dd within 6 months.

 

All this info about child development has been around for decades. I, too, have no idea why no one believes it. (Or really so many don't )

[8filltheheart]

Another thought. One of the sad things about the term "academic" as an adjective defining early educational experiences is that it's come to mean something like "boring, dull stuff poorly done by someone whose own education was lacking." ......

 

Is part of where we go wrong a narrow, flawed definition of what it means to be "academic" in early childhood, and the treatment of "academic" vs. "play" as polar opposites?

From my perspective, no, those definitions are not the distinction. From the research I did in college, a major distinction is self-direction and self-discovery vs. adult-directed and constantly time-managed. Fwiw, the research I read emphasized that purely dramatic play (using their imaginations and just doing completely made up things) actually developed higher order critical thinking skills better than adult-directed activities. Dress-up, playing house, digging in dirt, running around playing whatever made up games they created/child-directed imaginative play were more influential on higher-order cognitive skills.

[snowbeltmom]

My. Background and experiences are very similar to 8. I remember articles into the 90s supporting developmental play. My classroom (grades1/2) was set up for supporting play via a grant. But then suddenly that all changed. I had already left teaching and started hearing about "all the research" that supported Academic pre-school. I was gobsmacked as it ran counter to all I had seen. It crystallized further our decision to homeschool. And the focus on play has certainly not held my kids back.

 

I remember discussing my dd with a friend. Her dd started reading at 4. My dd didn't read well until 7. My friend was shocked that I believed it wouldn't matter a bit in two years bc she saw reading as linear--once you were ahead you kept being ahead. My dd caught up to her dd within 6 months.

 

All this info about child development has been around for decades. I, too, have no idea why no one believes it. (Or really so many don't )

I wonder if "all that research" supporting academic preschool was funded by the textbook and testing industries. I have been out of the public schools for more than a decade, but the amount of testing done now is far worse than it was when my kids were in the system, and back then I thought the testing was excessive. It is ridiculous.

[shawthorne44]

Now, what's interesting is that we can all (pretty much?) agree on this when it comes to preschool and K, but at what age do we change our opinion? (I ask because this is from the blog of Peter Gray, whose latest post on John Holt demonstrates pretty well his strong belief that children of all ages should be able to control their learning.) What is the magic age when formal lessons and worksheets become defensible, and hours of self-directed play should disappear? Is it acceptable for kids to spend only 15 minutes in a daily recess, as long as they've turned 6, as my local school district seems to believe, and to have homework and to take standardized tests?

....

 

I've wondered that myself.  

For our 7.5 year old, the only thing we've forced is Math.   She's happy to do everything else, probably because they means being read a good book or parent-time.   Hmmm, I've got to ponder that.   

[Farrar]

I would need to go look to be sure... but I think a lot of the research from the 90's about more academic early ed environments being beneficial comes out of support for programs like Head Start, which have been shown to benefit kids, including long term.

 

I agree with nearly everything being said here - play based is the answer overall, academic kindy is bad for kids, there's zero question. But also, there are a lot of issues around helping lower income kids have the same opportunities as their peers that can't be as easily encapsulated in "play based is best". And, obviously, homeschooling isn't an answer for everyone. Not that I have those answers. I just think it's a lot more straightforward for families who aren't experiencing a lot of the challenges. And closing the day cares and preschools just is not a good answer, as appealing as it is on a gut level to those of us who believe in education at home.

[HomeAgain]

I struggle with this.  I agree wholeheartedly when it comes to ideals, but I can see it going too far in one direction or another.  I think it is easiest for me to say that much of what a child does should be child-directed, while slowly being incorporated into a community in which he/she is relied upon to be part of a unit - and at that point, academics should be more encouraged, but in small units, either play or work based.  By work, I mean, something the child gets fulfillment from, not a worksheet meant to prove knowledge.  Rather, more like Montessori, where skills are developed in hands on ways, but the tools are chosen specifically to help a child develop in a progression.

 

DS7 learned to read when he was 4yo, in roughly three months.  And I do not mean he learned to read CVC words, but that he was reading any and everything.  Yes, I taught him, because he wanted to learn and he decided he was ready.  It was also the year I carefully crafted an age-appropriate introduction to the world, with art, music, geography, dance, food, stories...yet when a well meaning friend asked him what he did for school, he balked and very much informed her that he doesn't DO school, he plays, tyvm.  Nothing was forced on him, it was all presented as things I wanted to share or activities he could do whenever he liked without any interference.  To outsiders, his life still looks very academic.  To him, it is a rush of learning about everything and anything - he LIKES to learn, he LIKES to grow more capable.  It doesn't mean he doesn't play (this morning has been a whirlwind of snow angels, Star Wars battles with all his figurines, and painting), but that he has never seen school as something bad or having to sit down for.

 

I agree that a child's life should have a lot of creative play in it.  I just think it can be taken too far, like Waldorf, and keep a child from developing when a child is ready or interested.

[kiana]

It's interesting, because on a different forum for academics that I read, a former poster was a professor of early childhood education. She would rant at some length about the complete inappropriateness of current educational methods, and how the research showed that they were all wrong.

 

A lot of the research about early academics and frequent testing is promulgated and funded by the same people who design the direct instruction and testing programs. There are also a lot of problems when study subjects are followed for only one year (they DO make good gains in THAT year) as opposed to longer periods. It's the same thing with math instruction. We know that conceptual instruction with appropriate practice is far superior for long-term gains. But test-taking drill and "this is how you do it" produces better gains for most students in THIS year. So we do that because every year we are faced with the prisoner's dilemma situation where we must increase the scores for this year, and the long-term is less important. It's ridiculous. 

 

It's also really easy for people to get many voters/school boards to buy into "we need to increase the test scores" under the guise of accountability/failing schools/etc., and implement this "new program" which produces great gains in that year, many parents are happy because they see scores go up, and ... yeah. 

[EmseB]

I would need to go look to be sure... but I think a lot of the research from the 90's about more academic early ed environments being beneficial comes out of support for programs like Head Start, which have been shown to benefit kids, including long term.

This is interesting to me as all the research I have seen says that any academic gains are lost by about second or third grade and socially/community-wise there weren't measurable positive effects either. And this was research done by the Head Start people themselves. Can you point me to a cite?

[Farrar]

This is interesting to me as all the research I have seen says that any academic gains are lost by about second or third grade and socially/community-wise there weren't measurable positive effects either. And this was research done by the Head Start people themselves. Can you point me to a cite?

 

I can't... this was just based on my memory of being in grad school ages ago and seeing the same trends that people are talking about here - how the evidence was clear as far back as the 60's and 70's that academic based preschool was bad... then in the 90's, the tune changed among the decision makers, and now we're finally getting back around again. I think one of the key things is that everyone was looking at a lot more short term data with more focus for awhile.

[Dmmetler]

I would need to go look to be sure... but I think a lot of the research from the 90's about more academic early ed environments being beneficial comes out of support for programs like Head Start, which have been shown to benefit kids, including long term.

 

I agree with nearly everything being said here - play based is the answer overall, academic kindy is bad for kids, there's zero question. But also, there are a lot of issues around helping lower income kids have the same opportunities as their peers that can't be as easily encapsulated in "play based is best". And, obviously, homeschooling isn't an answer for everyone. Not that I have those answers. I just think it's a lot more straightforward for families who aren't experiencing a lot of the challenges. And closing the day cares and preschools just is not a good answer, as appealing as it is on a gut level to those of us who believe in education at home.

Here’s the thing,though. I started teaching Head Start in 1994,and at the time, not only was it not seat based and worksheets, but we literally could not use a xerox machine to print lines and shapes on colored paper for kids to cut out-to do such an activity required tracing said shapes by hand ourselves. Academics were basically the kind of things many kids get at home-reading with the child, nursery rhymes, singing songs, and carefully selected toys and games. We spent a lot of time actively teaching self-care, ate meals together and modeled and taught manners and conversation, and honestly, I probably did more formal lessons with my first year kids on tooth brushing than on letter recognition (we had three classes and I had the youngest group-the oldest were those who were eligible by age for K, but the parents and staff felt needed a little more time).

 

What was considered “academic†at the time was far more laid back than any preschool I visited for DD, and way, way more laid back than kindergarten.

[Farrar]

Yes, I agree. I no longer really have much personal interaction with very-impoverished parents making hard choices. And the conversation on what research and common sense should dictate afa public policy is a v different conversation than the one about how people with relatively wide-open choices should interact with research and common sense.

 

But then again maybe not. Being at the babysitters when you're four doesn't need to be "preschool" at all, either academic or "play based." My mom used to run a daycare and it was just like she had a bunch of kids. They did crafts and things sometimes, sang songs, could finger painting or whatever, took naps as needed...just what everyone does with itty bitty kids. No one ever called it preschool. And it was fine.

 

I agree that being at the babysitter's at age 4 doesn't need to be anything special. But sometimes there are no options that involve anything as rich as crafts and songs and naps. Sometimes people don't have the resources or the legacy of examples to know what most of us think of as "common sense" - and there's no exposure to books, or nature, or games... But then, how do you take these more relaxed, rich practices and transform them into something fundable and standardized enough without it becoming "academic." I think there's a fine line there that's trickier in implementation than it should be, at least when you get bureaucracy involved. And I am in favor of universal preschool, so something has to give somewhere.

[Dmmetler]

This is interesting to me as all the research I have seen says that any academic gains are lost by about second or third grade and socially/community-wise there weren't measurable positive effects either. And this was research done by the Head Start people themselves. Can you point me to a cite?

The Perry Preachool study, which wasn’t specifically Head Start, but High/Scope (which Head Start adopted and used at least as long as I was there) showed gains into adulthood as far as percentage of kids from at risk backgrounds who finished school, were not arrested, and were employed. Academic gains were not the concern.

[MinivanMom]

Now, what's interesting is that we can all (pretty much?) agree on this when it comes to preschool and K, but at what age do we change our opinion? (I ask because this is from the blog of Peter Gray, whose latest post on John Holt demonstrates pretty well his strong belief that children of all ages should be able to control their learning.) What is the magic age when formal lessons and worksheets become defensible, and hours of self-directed play should disappear? Is it acceptable for kids to spend only 15 minutes in a daily recess, as long as they've turned 6, as my local school district seems to believe, and to have homework and to take standardized tests?

 

Another thought. One of the sad things about the term "academic" as an adjective defining early educational experiences is that it's come to mean something like "boring, dull stuff poorly done by someone whose own education was lacking." (I do not say this to belittle preschool teachers, but rather to acknowledge that as a society we do wrong by thinking that being in charge of children under a certain age-- and I don't even know what that age would be, perhaps it even includes middle school and high school!-- doesn't require academic knowledge so much as training in how to manage large groups of kids.)

 

I still think we must struggle as a society that cares about all children to provide what our children are blessed with: homes where parents talk to them, listen to them, read to them, play games, and so forth. But thinking this could be replicated by formal lessons and worksheets seems to me a pipe dream. Is part of where we go wrong a narrow, flawed definition of what it means to be "academic" in early childhood, and the treatment of "academic" vs. "play" as polar opposites?

 

I think that's a really interesting question. 

 

I had a really fortunate schooling experience myself where I was bused to a self-enclosed gifted classroom for grades 2-6. Our class was being used to test out reader and writers workshop when they were first being developed. The basis of the approach was that children choose their own books and writing projects. Combine that with no homework, Singapore-style math with manipulatives, a project approach to history & science, and more than an hour of daily recess. None of us had any trouble transitioning to a more traditional junior high approach in 7th grade with class periods and homework, but our junior high still had an hour of daily recess! All of those kids I came through the program with wound up at good universities (most on academic scholarships), but we were all bright to begin with. 

 

I think it makes sense to have a very gradual transition from a play-based environment in K (and even 1st & 2nd) to more formal lessons. The research is all there to support having more recess and less homework in elementary school, but schools are under a massive amount of pressure to produce high test scores right now. So everything gets pushed down to younger grades even when common-sense and research tell us that isn't a good idea. I would love to see play-based instruction and self-directed learning make a comeback in elementary school. 

[Hilltopmom]

Here’s the thing,though. I started teaching Head Start in 1994,and at the time, not only was it not seat based and worksheets, but we literally could not use a xerox machine to print lines and shapes on colored paper for kids to cut out-to do such an activity required tracing said shapes by hand ourselves. Academics were basically the kind of things many kids get at home-reading with the child, nursery rhymes, singing songs, and carefully selected toys and games. We spent a lot of time actively teaching self-care, ate meals together and modeled and taught manners and conversation, and honestly, I probably did more formal lessons with my first year kids on tooth brushing than on letter recognition (we had three classes and I had the youngest group-the oldest were those who were eligible by age for K, but the parents and staff felt needed a little more time).

 

What was considered “academic†at the time was far more laid back than any preschool I visited for DD, and way, way more laid back than kindergarten.

This is still what Head Start is like here. I push into 4 different programs. All spend much more time on meals and tooth brushing each day than “academicsâ€. Most of the kids aren’t ready to learn letters yet, even the ones going to kindy next year. Lots getting special ed services. Circle time is songs, books, weather, counting, brief letter of the week stuff.

It’s nice... but isn’t preparing these kids for the public school K that we have now.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Hilltopmom

[Dmmetler]

This is still what Head Start is like here. I push into 4 different programs. All spend much more time on meals and tooth brushing each day than “academicsâ€. Most of the kids aren’t ready to learn letters yet, even the ones going to kindy next year. Lots getting special ed services. Circle time is songs, books, weather, counting, brief letter of the week stuff.

It’s nice... but isn’t preparing these kids for the public school K that we have now.

But, honestly, it’s what many of these kids need developmentally at the time. At the urban school I taught in when I moved here,our average kindy came in at a 2 yr old level of vocabulary both receptive and expressive. That’s huge when it comes to being able to learn to read. It was the kids who had been in Head Start or Title 1 Pre-K or developmental pre-k who were actually anywhere close to what is considered normal for a 5-6 yr old as far as pre-reading skills, with the ones who had 3 years (possible only if a child had special needs or was considered in the most “at risk†tier) the closest. One year wasn’t enough.

 

That’s one reason why I hate the push down of academics. Kids from middle class and up families where they have all the “right†things done early often struggle. Kids who don’t have those advantages...well, they already are coming in behind on skills for kindergartners 20 years ago. How are they supposed to master skills that are more like those expected of 1st grade or even 2nd in prior generations?

[Roadrunner]

In my experience families who are adamant about only play based preschools are often well off and provide significant enrichment at home. I remember arguing with my coworker about this. He was against anything academic in preschool, but he had a stay at home wife who read a ton of books for her boys and did a lot of arts and crafts. So they chose a preschool where kids were there parttime and mostly spent time playing outside. In contrast my kids were in an academic preschool because I worked all day and often long hours. When we all got home we had to cook, eat, play, take a bath and sleep. Yet I knew that my kids got all the arts and crafts and coloring and playing outside and a ton of story time in preschool. It was a much better choice for our situation than a purely play based environment.

[Corraleno]

When I was living in the UK, there was a massive push to start academics earlier and earlier — kindergarten ("Reception") was a full day academic program, starting at FOUR. It was so crazy, and yet the government kept pushing more and more academics, earlier and earlier. I'm not sure what its like now, but at one point standards for 4 yr olds included the ability to read words they had never seen before and to write simple sentences "with punctuation." :blink: 

 

I remember a bunch of documentaries and investigative reports where journalists visited classrooms and talked to experts in other European countries, and the contrast was quite stark. In countries that didn't start formal schooling until the age of 7, by 9 or 10 the kids had already surpassed UK students who started school at 4. A lot of the play-based learning that kids in other countries did in the early years was specifically designed to develop skills and concepts that are foundational for later learning, as well as building self-confidence, social skills, and physical coordination/dexterity. And not surprisingly, they found that boys were particularly harmed by early academics — I think the UK was (at that point at least) one of the worst countries in the world in terms of the academic achievement gap between boys and girls in primary school. So many teachers were saying "this is horrible, this is so damaging to kids, but we have no choice — if we don't meet the standards we'll be shut down."

 

And I vividly remember wanting to smack the crap out of the bureaucrat behind the push for earlier and earlier academics — no matter how much evidence was presented to him that this was not only futile but downright damaging, he just kept saying "well, I don't believe that" and "I happen to disagree." His response to the fact that teachers were overwhelmingly opposed to the new standards, was to suggest that they didn't have high enough standards and they needed to raise their expectations for children, who were perfectly capable of the "higher levels of achievement" required by the new standards.  :cursing:

[Roadrunner]

I think I am still trying to understand what is academic preschool. A place where teachers read stories to kids, learn colors, learn songs, paint/draw, built, learn to count to 10, would a place like that be considered an academic environment? I see no harm in this. Or are we discussing phonics lessons and math spreadsheets at the age of 4? That would be crazy, stupid and crazy. I tend to think of parent run coops as play based preschools. At least around here those are the ones where running around unstructured outside along with some structured play (Lego building) is really all that is offered.

[Corraleno]

I think I am still trying to understand what is academic preschool. A place where teachers read stories to kids, learn colors, learn songs, paint/draw, built, learn to count to 10, would a place like that be considered an academic environment? I see no harm in this. Or are we discussing phonics lessons and math spreadsheets at the age of 4? That would be crazy, stupid and crazy. I tend to think of parent run coops as play based preschools. At least around here those are the ones where running around unstructured outside along with some structured play (Lego building) is really all that is offered.

No, what you describe (stories, songs, painting, building, etc) is actually what they do in play-based preschools/kindy (which, in many European countries, is up to age 6, after which they start formal schooling at 7). The academic programs include math worksheets and phonics lessons and writing practice. Which, yes, is totally nuts for 4 yr olds.  :sad:

Edited January 1, 2018 by Corraleno

[stutterfish]

When I was living in the UK, there was a massive push to start academics earlier and earlier — kindergarten ("Reception") was a full day academic program, starting at FOUR. It was so crazy, and yet the government kept pushing more and more academics, earlier and earlier. I'm not sure what its like now, but at one point standards for 4 yr olds included the ability to read words they had never seen before and to write simple sentences "with punctuation." :blink:

 

I remember a bunch of documentaries and investigative reports where journalists visited classrooms and talked to experts in other European countries, and the contrast was quite stark. In countries that didn't start formal schooling until the age of 7, by 9 or 10 the kids had already surpassed UK students who started school at 4. A lot of the play-based learning that kids in other countries did in the early years was specifically designed to develop skills and concepts that are foundational for later learning, as well as building self-confidence, social skills, and physical coordination/dexterity. And not surprisingly, they found that boys were particularly harmed by early academics — I think the UK was (at that point at least) one of the worst countries in the world in terms of the academic achievement gap between boys and girls in primary school. So many teachers were saying "this is horrible, this is so damaging to kids, but we have no choice — if we don't meet the standards we'll be shut down."

 

And I vividly remember wanting to smack the crap out of the bureaucrat behind the push for earlier and earlier academics — no matter how much evidence was presented to him that this was not only futile but downright damaging, he just kept saying "well, I don't believe that" and "I happen to disagree." His response to the fact that teachers were overwhelmingly opposed to the new standards, was to suggest that they didn't have high enough standards and they needed to raise their expectations for children, who were perfectly capable of the "higher levels of achievement" required by the new standards. :cursing:

I'm in the UK. Tbh, there is still a huge push towards early academics, despite research recommending against it. I think it's one of the main reasons we've seen a huge influx in families home educating from the start: many children just aren't ready for that kind of environment at 4 or 5.

 

The push really started creeping in about 15 years ago. There were new government guidelines issued about what academic provision preschools should have, and how to document every aspect of "play" and direct it to be more "educational". The relaxed playgroups and grassroots community child provision gradually died out because parents got financial concessions to send their kids to registered preschools attached to schools. This was teamed with a huge drive from the government to get mums back into work (so they could pay taxes, obviously.) These days, its pretty rare to find a child over 3 years at our local parks and playgrounds during school hours. :(

 

Early testing on children in UK schools has been reduced, mainly because staff protested for years to get tests removed. Apart from that, not much else has improved. Literacy, numeracy and science still take priority; the arts and sport are generally seen as secondary subjects and are squeezed into the corners of the school week. Children as young as 5 or 6 are quickly labelled as "behind" or deficient in some way, simply because their learning style or age-appropriate immaturity is not catered for in schools. Parents often push for more academics because no-one wants their child to fall behind. I do think some schools and staff work hard to minimise the impact on their students, but the pressure of meeting government targets, and the fear of being put on 'special measures' if inspections aren't favourable, make it extremely difficult for them to exercise any autonomy.

 

Although there are many factors, I think early academics in schools, and the focus on prioritising academic achievement above all else, are having a tragic long-term effect on the mental health of young people in the UK. I'm truly shocked at the number of families that I now see coming to home education with their 14 and 15 year olds. For these children 14-16 are the most important years of schooling, in terms of exams and future career prospects, but these families are truly desperate. Many of these children are otherwise 'high-achievers', by school standards. Anxiety, depression, stress, self-harm, bullying...all commonly stated reasons for withdrawing their teens from school.

Edited January 1, 2018 by stutterfish

[goldenecho]

What I've read is that preschool has been shown to be helpful for poor kids, but has little to no benifit to middle class or rich kids.   What I read into that is that preschool is helpful for people who's parents might not be educated themselves, might be overworked just trying to make ends meet and  have less time for their kids, and so can't offer them as much of a stimulating environment at home.  Also, they may be under stress at home if their parents are under stress....or there isn't enough to eat (preschool gives snacks usually), etc.   So preschool could be a safe place.

 

For families with a stable home life though, with a parent who can stay home, preschool is wholly unnecessary, and yeah, could actually be worse.

 

I just reread Better Late Than Early and am always blown away by how much research there is cited in that book going back from the 70’s and earlier, which shows again and again preschool for the majority of children is unneeded at best, detrimental at worst and also basically steals service funds from the kids who would actually benefit. Yet it’s still ignored more than 40 years later. I can’t remember the authors name but a female psychiatrist from NY I believe published a book in the same vein recently and they crucified her in the reviews for being anti-feminist that she advocated against daycare for the first few years if possible. Glad to see at least someone is still keeping the discussion alive in the journals.

 

Edited January 1, 2018 by goldenecho

[SKL]

Yeah, I think most preschools have a balance of play and academics that is usually not detrimental to most kids.  I don't know what an "academic" preschool is actually.  I mean I generally say my kids went to one, but they mostly did what all preschoolers do - play, eat, hear and use language, interact with others, interact with materials, move from activity to activity.  Yes, some of the language and small-muscle activities involved letters and numbers.  The kids didn't see any difference between that and any other type of content.  There is nothing inherently high-pressure about book learning.

 

The fact is that working moms are not going away, and I don't see the point of saying their kids are screwed because they go to preschool.  I could understand laying out specific actions or methods that preschools should steer away from.  If they are trying to say that exposing kids to pre-reading skills is damaging, that is bull.  If they are saying kids of a certain age should spend a certain maximum time sitting at chairs and tables (except when it is their choice to do so), then fine.

[SKL]

From my perspective, no, those definitions are not the distinction. From the research I did in college, a major distinction is self-direction and self-discovery vs. adult-directed and constantly time-managed. Fwiw, the research I read emphasized that purely dramatic play (using their imaginations and just doing completely made up things) actually developed higher order critical thinking skills better than adult-directed activities. Dress-up, playing house, digging in dirt, running around playing whatever made up games they created/child-directed imaginative play were more influential on higher-order cognitive skills.

 

Kids who are born with cognitive advantages also naturally do more of those kinds of play without needing direction.

 

I have one like that (and I was born into a family like that), but I also have a kid who never really did imaginative play.  If someone else was playing, she'd join in, maybe, but on her own she'd just kind of sit there watching the world go by.  She also isn't my cognitive superstar.  Both kids had the exact same upbringing from age 1, so I don't believe there is a clear cause-effect relationship between imaginative play and cognitive skills.  If you have a kid who doesn't really imagine, you end up directing that kid to do the kind of play being pushed - whether you call it "imaginative" or not.  It's no less adult-directed than academic teaching.  On the other hand, you put an imaginative kid in an academic setting, and she doesn't stop imagining.  She uses the academic learning to extend her fun.

[8filltheheart]

Kids who are born with cognitive advantages also naturally do more of those kinds of play without needing direction.

 

I have one like that (and I was born into a family like that), but I also have a kid who never really did imaginative play. If someone else was playing, she'd join in, maybe, but on her own she'd just kind of sit there watching the world go by. She also isn't my cognitive superstar. Both kids had the exact same upbringing from age 1, so I don't believe there is a clear cause-effect relationship between imaginative play and cognitive skills. If you have a kid who doesn't really imagine, you end up directing that kid to do the kind of play being pushed - whether you call it "imaginative" or not. It's no less adult-directed than academic teaching. On the other hand, you put an imaginative kid in an academic setting, and she doesn't stop imagining. She uses the academic learning to extend her fun.

There is substantial research indicating otherwise. I didn't read anything other than the abstract of the linked article bc if someone really wants to know they can easily research it themselves, but here is the first article that came: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED464763.pdf

[SKL]

There is substantial research indicating otherwise. I didn't read anything other than the abstract of the linked article bc if someone really wants to know they can easily research it themselves, but here is the first article that came: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED464763.pdf

 

I read the article to support what I said above.  I also note that the article starts out with a clear bias toward funding for play-based school.

 

What they have supposedly proven is that there are connections between imaginative play and cognition.  They say more research is needed to understand any cause-effect that may exist.  My opinion is that cognitive ability has much more influence on imaginative play than the other way around, and promoting more pretend play in preschool would most likely extend the advantage that these already-bright kids have in school.

 

Not that I have anything against imaginative play, I just don't think there is enough information to prove that it needs to elbow out other types of learning in preschool.

 

Also - the type of play they are encouraging is group cooperative play of specific types that would need to be "facilitated" in a group preschool setting, because most kids don't have other regular access to a group of similar-aged peers.  This would speak against opting out of group preschool as well as against "academic" preschool.

 

As a kindergartener (age 4-5), I loathed any activity that involved an adult telling me what I should "play" or how I should "play."  It wasn't fun or imaginative at that point.  Quite frankly it stressed me out.  I'll bet I'm not that unusual.  And I was a good student throughout school once I got past those annoying "play" requirements.

[8filltheheart]

I read the article to support what I said above. I also note that the article starts out with a clear bias toward funding for play-based school.

 

What they have supposedly proven is that there are connections between imaginative play and cognition. They say more research is needed to understand any cause-effect that may exist. My opinion is that cognitive ability has much more influence on imaginative play than the other way around, and promoting more pretend play in preschool would most likely extend the advantage that these already-bright kids have in school.

 

Not that I have anything against imaginative play, I just don't think there is enough information to prove that it needs to elbow out other types of learning in preschool.

 

Also - the type of play they are encouraging is group cooperative play of specific types that would need to be "facilitated" in a group preschool setting, because most kids don't have other regular access to a group of similar-aged peers. This would speak against opting out of group preschool as well as against "academic" preschool.

 

As a kindergartener (age 4-5), I loathed any activity that involved an adult telling me what I should "play" or how I should "play." It wasn't fun or imaginative at that point. Quite frankly it stressed me out. I'll bet I'm not that unusual. And I was a good student throughout school once I got past those annoying "play" requirements.

Like I said, I didn't read the article, just the abstract. I graduated from college in 1987. There was significant research back then showing the same results. Bloom's taxonomy on cognition is an academic view on similar concepts. Creativity/evaluation are higher order skills than knowledge. Imaginative play is the early childhood step and normal in human development.

[Bluegoat]

I'm curious how Montessori would compare. I don't think it's what they mean by "academic", and yet many people would consider it to be academic. It's certainly not play-based... Although in another sense, it is precisely play-based.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

One of the things that bothers me about Montessori is that they really seem to discourage imaginative play - that's fairly important to how they think about child development.  Most of the things they do, I really like, but there are a few things that they don' do - like pretend play - that I think are a problem.

[Bluegoat]

Now, what's interesting is that we can all (pretty much?) agree on this when it comes to preschool and K, but at what age do we change our opinion? (I ask because this is from the blog of Peter Gray, whose latest post on John Holt demonstrates pretty well his strong belief that children of all ages should be able to control their learning.) What is the magic age when formal lessons and worksheets become defensible, and hours of self-directed play should disappear? Is it acceptable for kids to spend only 15 minutes in a daily recess, as long as they've turned 6, as my local school district seems to believe, and to have homework and to take standardized tests?

 

Another thought. One of the sad things about the term "academic" as an adjective defining early educational experiences is that it's come to mean something like "boring, dull stuff poorly done by someone whose own education was lacking." (I do not say this to belittle preschool teachers, but rather to acknowledge that as a society we do wrong by thinking that being in charge of children under a certain age-- and I don't even know what that age would be, perhaps it even includes middle school and high school!-- doesn't require academic knowledge so much as training in how to manage large groups of kids.)

 

I still think we must struggle as a society that cares about all children to provide what our children are blessed with: homes where parents talk to them, listen to them, read to them, play games, and so forth. But thinking this could be replicated by formal lessons and worksheets seems to me a pipe dream. Is part of where we go wrong a narrow, flawed definition of what it means to be "academic" in early childhood, and the treatment of "academic" vs. "play" as polar opposites?

 

I don't really have any research to support it, but I've generally felt that upper elementary - grades 4, 5 and 6, is where a more academic focus seems appropriate, with grade 3 as a sort of transition year.  1 and 2 I approach as very non-academic, with reading, light math, and writing - just the physical forming of letters - being the only "academic" subjects.  

[HomeAgain]

One of the things that bothers me about Montessori is that they really seem to discourage imaginative play - that's fairly important to how they think about child development.  Most of the things they do, I really like, but there are a few things that they don' do - like pretend play - that I think are a problem.

 

I always got the impression that Montessori discourages imaginative play during the active work period.  For young children, this was supposed to be a mere 1-3 hours per day, and afterward be turned out to their own devices in free play for a while, then circle back to a routine.  Even so, drawing and painting were encouraged.  But was never meant to be an encompassing philosophy on how to raise children.

 

In a modern day class, where schools have children for 6-8 hours per day, they should certainly be providing free time outside and in play based settings. It is a failure of the philosophy to extend it further than a child has focus for.

[Hilltopmom]

But, honestly, it’s what many of these kids need developmentally at the time. At the urban school I taught in when I moved here,our average kindy came in at a 2 yr old level of vocabulary both receptive and expressive. That’s huge when it comes to being able to learn to read. It was the kids who had been in Head Start or Title 1 Pre-K or developmental pre-k who were actually anywhere close to what is considered normal for a 5-6 yr old as far as pre-reading skills, with the ones who had 3 years (possible only if a child had special needs or was considered in the most “at risk†tier) the closest. One year wasn’t enough.

 

That’s one reason why I hate the push down of academics. Kids from middle class and up families where they have all the “right†things done early often struggle. Kids who don’t have those advantages...well, they already are coming in behind on skills for kindergartners 20 years ago. How are they supposed to master skills that are more like those expected of 1st grade or even 2nd in prior generations?

Oh, I totally agree with you and think all preschools should be play based and developmentally appropriate!

[Corraleno]

One of the things that bothers me about Montessori is that they really seem to discourage imaginative play - that's fairly important to how they think about child development.  Most of the things they do, I really like, but there are a few things that they don' do - like pretend play - that I think are a problem.

I think that may be more a function of the particular personality of the teacher or director, rather than being an inherent part of the philosophy. I taught in a Montessori school for a couple of years (before I had kids), mostly in the 2-4 yr old classroom, and we definitely encouraged imaginative play. We had a box of dress-up stuff kids could use, easels and lots of art materials for drawing and painting, and kids could use the Montessori materials in creative ways, too. Kids would use the water-pouring "work" as part of a pretend tea party, or two kids could wash the doll together and pretend they were parents, or talking bears who found a baby in the woods, or whatever. We had a play kitchen and masks and stuffed animals and all kinds of cool stuff to play with — one time a parent brought in a whole bunch of hats from a store that went out of business, and the kids had a blast with those. Plus they spent tons of time outside, which was almost all imaginative play.

 

OTOH, I did know one Montessori teacher, who taught kindy, who was really rigid about kids being quiet and sitting still and only using materials in specifically prescribed ways. She always wore skirts and heels and never let the kids touch her. :( I thought she was in the wrong profession, but then she probably thought I was nuts for sitting in the dirt while kids climbed all over me and pretended I was an evil dragon or a friendly giant or a dinosaur egg or whatever.

[Corraleno]

Academic preschools are taking over here. Montessori's are becoming few and far between and I've yet to see an Regio Emilio or Waldorf anywhere near here. The academic preschools we're seeing friends and acquaintances describe are full day programs starting around age 3. The kids have daily homework. Page upon page of handwriting, science projects and other things. For three year olds. One of my friends complained to the director of her particular school about the homework load,  and the director said she sympathized with my friend not wanting to spend her few hours outside of work with her kid doing schoolwork, but that the majority of other parents were in fact demanding more homework. The school had to compete to be considered "rigorous". Again, this was for three year olds. The director told her that the homework was optional, but the teachers became clearly annoyed when she started not turning in some of the "homework" and the child must have gotten some other feedback in class as she started worrying at home about not doing her homework. Other friends have kids in schools that require testing and entrance exams starting at 2-3 years old. Those are what I consider "academic". People are putting their four year olds into tutoring centers to get an edge on reading before they start kindergarten. It's nuts. Now I live in an affluent area, but the push is overwhelming from what I'm seeing on my end.

This is just tragic. And so so counter-productive. The harder we push academics in preschool, the more remedial classes colleges have to add. Not to mention the increase in depression and suicide among children.  :crying: 

 

We spend 14-15 years training kids to sit still and be quiet and do exactly as they're told, and practice exactly these (very limited) skills, and memorize exactly these facts in order to regurgitate them on tests, and then they get to college and discover that they supposed to be questioning and analyzing sources, not parroting them, and they're supposed to think creatively and have original ideas and be able to defend them in a logical and articulate way. And when they can't, we rail about "lazy, self-centered kids these days who want everything spoon fed." As if we haven't just spent 15 years training them to do exactly that.  :glare:

[goldenecho]

From my perspective, no, those definitions are not the distinction. From the research I did in college, a major distinction is self-direction and self-discovery vs. adult-directed and constantly time-managed. Fwiw, the research I read emphasized that purely dramatic play (using their imaginations and just doing completely made up things) actually developed higher order critical thinking skills better than adult-directed activities. Dress-up, playing house, digging in dirt, running around playing whatever made up games they created/child-directed imaginative play were more influential on higher-order cognitive skills.

 

 

One of the things that bothers me about Montessori is that they really seem to discourage imaginative play - that's fairly important to how they think about child development.  Most of the things they do, I really like, but there are a few things that they don' do - like pretend play - that I think are a problem.

 

 

I think that may be more a function of the particular personality of the teacher or director, rather than being an inherent part of the philosophy. I taught in a Montessori school for a couple of years (before I had kids), mostly in the 2-4 yr old classroom, and we definitely encouraged imaginative play. We had a box of dress-up stuff kids could use, easels and lots of art materials for drawing and painting, and kids could use the Montessori materials in creative ways, too. Kids would use the water-pouring "work" as part of a pretend tea party, or two kids could wash the doll together and pretend they were parents, or talking bears who found a baby in the woods, or whatever. We had a play kitchen and masks and stuffed animals and all kinds of cool stuff to play with — one time a parent brought in a whole bunch of hats from a store that went out of business, and the kids had a blast with those. Plus they spent tons of time outside, which was almost all imaginative play.

 

OTOH, I did know one Montessori teacher, who taught kindy, who was really rigid about kids being quiet and sitting still and only using materials in specifically prescribed ways. She always wore skirts and heels and never let the kids touch her. :( I thought she was in the wrong profession, but then she probably thought I was nuts for sitting in the dirt while kids climbed all over me and pretended I was an evil dragon or a friendly giant or a dinosaur egg or whatever.

 

I've read before that make-believe play was discouraged under Montessori.  This article describes the origin of that:

 

http://www.montessorianswers.com/myth-fantasy.html

 

It said that much of what  Montessori said about fantasy was responding to a earlier education leader named Froebel that encouraged pretending in classrooms (make believe cooking and farming and whatever).  That makes me curious about Froebel because I incorporate SO MUCH pretend in our homeschool.   My kiddo had a horrid KG year that really made him resistant to learning, and the only way I could get him to try things most of the time without him breaking down and crying was to do real lessons in play school (with play toy students and me as a toy teacher).   He still likes it so I will keep doing it until he doesn't.  

 

I understand the benefit of actually doing things like gardening or washing dishes in stead of pretending to do it when possible....but pretending can be such a wonderful tool to teach kids, as well as just making great play!

Edited January 2, 2018 by goldenecho

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, my understanding with Montessori is that Maria M. felt that kids turned to fantasy play mainly when their desire to do real work was frustrated.  

 

No, I think Montessori schools will often now be more flexible about this, but I do think it speaks somewhat to their view of the child.

 

And actually I think it's true that kids want real work and to learn real skills.  I think it's great when young kids are doing a lot of the chores in their own spaces, and are learning real hand skills.  Though with Montessori even those sometimes feel very artificial to me, like it's busy-work.

[shawthorne44]

One thing that bugs me when the success of the first Head Start program is pointed to as a reason for preschool.   It was far more than a preschool.  There was a lot of parent training too.   I remember reading a quote by the head of that where he basically said that the success of the program was in the other stuff they did.  

[Bluegoat]

Remember this huge Montessori thread?

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/517828-ask-a-montessorian/

 

Gosh, that just makes me more sure than ever that there is something wrong, at a basic level, with her thinking.

[Bluegoat]

Yip yip!

 

It was such a helpful thread, but in the polar opposite manner that the OP hoped.

 

Parents can't create perfect environments for kids, so starting at 2.5 years old kids should start spending most of the day at Montessori School, which is perfect.

 

I was glancing back through after linking it this morning and I was especially struck at how she kept reiterating that thousands of kids have seen superior (to....? Being unloved Roman street urchins, I suppose) results from Montessori and all I could think was and how many kids have been raised/educated with sundry classical methodologies haha?

 

All of which is to that there's just no panacea. Montessori is certainly superior to other things kids could be doing. But it's not the pinnacle of what we can do for children in general!

 

That is kind of what kept striving me - somehow the best environment for children to develop to be the best they could be is a highly ritualized class of 30 children and one teacher?

 

That just seems so very unlikely - like saying the only way kids will develop normally physically is if you raise them in a tank under the ocean.  It's so artificial.

 

Now, you do sometimes see homeschoolers making a similar claim, that the nuclear family is the only way for kids to develop most optimally and normally, right up to age 12 or 16 or 18.  Which seems less implausible but still not really in line with how human communities generally work - so it doesn't seem like it could really be that pure a model either.  And there is something to be said for the larger family groups people had in the past (more kids extended families) creating an environment where the kids has less hothousing and a real multi-aged peer group.

[EmseB]

It's funny, I went to a Montessori school for pre-k and kindy and I have really fond memories of it.  I love all those little task things. LOVED them. It was really not too wacky of a school at all.

 

We did a lot of "grown up" things like slicing oranges for snack and building a see-saw for the playground. We had music class, Spanish class, etc. I mean, I guess academic, but I remember it all feeling very fun and nurturing. And we did have free play and such.

[Kfamily]

I thought this article from the Parents' Review was really interesting. This was written in 1903 and references Froebel a great deal, so it is dated. :)

 

The Place and Value of the Kindergarten in a Complete Scheme of Education

 

The article really picks up in the middle section. 

 

I thought this was interesting:

 

"The child itself wants to learn," one hears. Such cases may be; and it is easy enough for parents who have no understanding for a child's happy discoveries in real things; no faith in the development of its creative activities through contact with life—it is easy enough for parents and teachers to put the child to mechanical and meaningless exercises and tasks of memory; but a Kindergarten in the real sense cannot and ought not to undertake this task, subverting its whole method, namely this, first to create a wealth of experiences, and secondly to guide the wish to give those experiences lasting shape. Only to fill this latter need, in its own time, does the desire for writing really come about; and out of the hunger for knowledge beyond one's own limits, comes reading, eager reading!

 

During the six or seven first years of its young life the human being is absorbed by real things, and it will never again have such opportunity. About it still, is "the glory and the freshness of a dream." These real experiences prepare for later years, for systematic knowledge, and develop its body and mind with surprising rapidity.

 

and also this:

 

The Kindergarten and its work comes sometimes to be pushed into a secondary place, as of less importance than the school; it is looked upon as trivial and without law; when in reality, within its boundaries lies the whole plan of the child's future life, and his attitude to the world into which he is born. All children, rich and poor alike, have at this stage the same common human powers and needs; and upon the harmonious development and organizing of these needs and powers depends the place, honoured or otherwise, our children will afterwards take as citizens of the community.

 

​​The Parents' Review was a monthly magazine for parents and teachers and was edited by Charlotte Mason.