2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > March > 07 > Entry
The best way to teach young kids
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel today is wrapping up a fine three-day series on the explosion of interest in state-paid pre-school nationally. The final story in the package looks at Oklahoma, which is a pioneer offering free pre-school to all four year olds who want it.
This is an interesting trend. The brain research over the past 15 years is a slam dunk — you can’t wait until age five to begin teaching your children. The years from 0 to 5 are crucial to the developing brain. Involved, educated parents or a good pre-school, for instance, can mean a a child is exposed to millions more words at an early eage helping them buildi their vocabularies and grow their language skills. And yet, our education system doesn’t begin until kindergarten, when some kids are already woefully behind.
But while there is a general consensus that more education earlier is a good idea, the question of who should provide it, how we ensure instruction is high quality and how to pay for it are unsettled.
Right now, pre-school in every state is a hodge-podge of public and private child centers and in home care. It takes a lot of work to find quality pre-school care for your kids.
But centralizing, standardizing and expanding pre-school brings a new set of problems. One, of course, is cost. How will states pay if they want to expand publicly funded pre-school options down to age four or even lower?
And finally, with state money comes higher expectations for quality and accountability. Some are already talking about the implications for testing very young children.
One final thought. While it seems sensible that more pre-school helps kids grow academically and should improve their life chances, there isn’t great research to demonstrate this is true or show us what types of programs do the best job. There are three big studies along these lines, but all three are old and limited in important ways. There is a real need for more research in this area.
What do you think about states paying to expand pre-school?
Permalink | Comments (9) | Categories: Young Children
Comments
By Shannon
March 14, 2006 6:50 PM | Link to this
With an 11-month-old, I’m constantly trying to figure out what’s best for my son, and I think early childhood education is, as a whole, very perplexing. It’s so, so important to find quality child care and instruction for young children, but as a culture, we send a very mixed message when these people only make $7 or $8 an hour, sometimes less. Add that to a business culture that makes it very difficult to do anything but put your kid in 40 hours of childcare, and I think you get a system that doesn’t really help anyone. You can’t talk about early childhood education without talking about how the parents have to handle work.By Scott Elliott
March 13, 2006 3:16 PM | Link to this
Roger you are correct and thanks for the catch about vocabulary words. The research said wealthier kids hear millions more words than poor kids just by being in a home with more educated parents. I’ve updated the post so that’s what it says now.By Mary
March 9, 2006 7:32 AM | Link to this
Rick, I think what is driving some of the preschool movement is what the kids are learning or not learning at home and elsewhere during the day. The big brother approach of government also bothers some. A few weeks ago this blog had something about federal funding on how to have good marriages, be good fathers, or whatever. I think a cultural decline is the root of the problem and children are not getting support at home. They are dropped off at preschools and day care (or left at home) by working moms with mixed results. A high percentage of kids are growing up without a father in the home and a stressed out mom. So what are they really learning?By Rick
March 8, 2006 6:56 PM | Link to this
The underlying assumption, which is wrong, is that children do not learn at home and therefore the government must step in. No, let the little ones stay a home a while longer.By roger
March 8, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
The need for early ‘education’ is undoubted. I am sorry that it may be met in some cases by nothing better than government schools. BTW, I don’t think anyone, least of all 5-year olds of whatever backgound, has a vocabulary of millions of words. In fact, English as a whole just hit, by a publicized estimate, 1,000,000 words total, and that includes variants and specialized words that no one person knows. If you go back to your source, it said kids may hear millions more or less words, depending on background. They are counting repititions of words, I’m sure. Different thing.By Mary
March 7, 2006 10:20 PM | Link to this
The topic of government sponsored pre-school reminds me of criticism of the USSR when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s - a time of nuclear war scares, anti-communism, etc. One of the criticisms of the USSR communistic culture was that very young chidren were essentially forced into state run schools while their mothers had to work. It is uncanny we, as a culture, now appear to be doing the same thing, albeit under possibly more voluntary circumstances. I guess some could argue a lot of mothers or fathers would not have to work as hard if taxes and government spending were lower.By tammy elliott
March 7, 2006 6:22 PM | Link to this
The state can’t fund it’s “free” public schools now-how would it plan to fund more schooling with more requirements i.e. diaper changing, health dept requrements, etc.? Kindergarten programs are being cut across the stae due to funding malfunctions. How are these students better served when they don’t attend school more than 2 days per week?By Mary
March 7, 2006 3:49 PM | Link to this
I would want to know the big plan, if there is any, about how the preschool would work into the rest of a child’s education program. Just as children, including very bright children, can have learning disabilities and disadvantages, many children are already introduced into kindergarten and know much of the material. They are bored and underchallenged during their entire education. So even if there is a good precschool program, there needs to be a follow on plan on how all children can receive an appropriate education instead of simply occupying a seat for another 13 years with no reasonable plan or system. Some children should be allowed to progress more rapidly through the education system saving tax dollars. Some people already consider high school a waste of tax dollars. Public schools used to stop at eighth grade. Yes, children’s brains are ready to learn at very young ages. Then many go to school and are consequently dumbed down in a system that generally recognizes ages and seat time for diplomas, but not abilities or needs, in the learning environment.By MandyMo
March 7, 2006 1:07 PM | Link to this
I think state-paid (and therefore, controlled) preschool is a bad idea. Once that rolls around, state funding will bring with it state testing and state-mandated curriculums and attendance. And out the door will go any noticeable individuality of preschool centers. I recently moved my 4-year-old from one preschool to another, based not only on geography but on the curriculum, atmosphere and many other lower-priority differences. He is much happier in his new, more relaxed class. My 12-year-old also switched schools - based solely on the school district lines. Her curriculum is exactly the same, as are many of the methods used to deliver it, and the overall atmosphere. Standardization is a double-edged sword. It ensures accountability, but also removes any room for “uniqueness”. And I don’t even want to think about my little boy being subjected to some mindless fill-in-the-bubble test at this age, he’ll get more than enough of that later.