What's wrong with early education and schools

[Mach]

What's everyones thinking on early education and keeping kids at "public school grade level". I mean specifically that if you put in even a minimal amount of effort educating your child from an early age, really just incorporating fun stuff into play (nothing serious or regimen, just a little internet research and minimal follow-through), your child will likely quickly pass up the typical public school grade level (And you, old timer). Then everyone asks you what you will do if they have to go to public school, often insisting it's really just a waste of time to let them get ahead, they will just even out once in public anyway?! So many people have raised this issue with us, it's maddening.

But not just them, an extended family member had an older son and younger daughter. They worked early on with the son and when he went to public he was bored, and misbheaved. Faculty and parents agreed that wasn't the best thing to do, so they opted NOT to do pre-k education of their daughter, to ensure she was sufficiently challenged in school and not bored (!).

What's with the general notion that most schools simply:
1. Will teach at level
2. Actively encourages not getting them too far ahead otherwise it makes it difficult on both the student and faculty

To me this is just outrageous, almost beyond comprehension. And I don't think it's necessarily just public, I'm sure a number of privates result in the same outcomes.

Is this rationalizing our desire not to excel, and to just sort of take it easy? Is this rationalizing our desire to not see our own children run circles around us academically? Why are many public/private schools accepting of such mediocrity? Are they too public-funded to innovate and find ways with the same resources to actually teach children at the level they are capable of learning? Or do educators know some secret about education that we really should NOT teach kids more rapidly than the average because....because why!?!?

Do most people really not use school for educating their child, and thus, the education part is obviously NOT a priority? Or do they want them to be average, since average is a way to prepare them for an average life? I do not understand the reasoning, but most of all I do not understand why it appears to be so widespread. On the off-chance I am overthinking this and I really should just let public schools take over, I'm genuinely interested (although very, very skeptical).

With education appearing to be the #1 cause and cure for so many societal woes, all the "working class" arguments and jobless claims, and cries about asians taking jobs, etc., etc., it seems our culture cements those problems for future generations.

 

[Fisher]

Some parents like early education as a way to get back into the workforce with a free babysitter. The problem in my area is that because of limited funds, you either have to be a minority or dumb as dirt to get one of the available slots. If your kid is not one of those two things, you either have to pay for private pre-K or keep your kids at home.

As for the teach at level, that is more complicated. Some good teachers will recognize and try to figure out a way to compensate with special extra-credit projects and the like or there may be certain advanced classes or the smartest kids all end up in the same classes together to try to keep the classroom moving at a consistent pace. One problem is that people may excel in certain areas and do not so well in others. I did very well in everything except fundamental sciences--to this day I would rather have may teeth cleaned with a hammer and chisel than open up a biology book. I do well at the more complicated stuff like physics but cell division is such a waste of time and to have to go over it year after year after year is monotonous.

I went to both public and private. I much preferred private for a million different reasons, not the least of which was the academic flexibility to pursue the things that interested me in the context of the classes without having to stay chained to a textbook company's teaching manual checklist.

 

[EddyGordo]

What's everyones thinking on early education and keeping kids at "public school grade level".

Breeds mediocracy

Faculty and parents agreed that wasn't the best thing to do, so they opted NOT to do pre-k education of their daughter, to ensure she was sufficiently challenged in school and not bored (!).

I get the feeling that I'll be preaching to the choir, but IMHO this approach is intended to benefit the parents and educators (not the child).

What's with the general notion that most schools simply:
1. Will teach at level
2. Actively encourages not getting them too far ahead otherwise it makes it difficult on both the student and faculty

I agree that this is actively encouraged in public school. I think its primarily because public schools are underfunded and are the curriculum is specifically designed to meet the intellectual level of "average" kids. Students who are above or bellow that level are encouraged to "dumb down" or "nod and smile", but many simply fall through the cracks entirely.

Do most people really not use school for educating their child, and thus, the education part is obviously NOT a priority?

Sadly, I think that's the long and short of it. Its free daycare. The life of the mind is just not very highly valued in America.

With education appearing to be the #1 cause and cure for so many societal woes, all the "working class" arguments and jobless claims, and cries about asians taking jobs, etc., etc., it seems our culture cements those problems for future generations.

Couldn't agree more

 

[Boo Radley]

I'm not sure I accept all your assumptions. Schools are largely faced with class size and logistic issues that prevent much individualized approaches. Few teachers enter the profession seeking mediocracy. Instead, they have to deal with overcrowded classrooms, state legislators acting for for voters, all of which have no real understanding, parents who are often less than ideal, and octal problems they can't change or overcome in the classroom. So, I'm not really sure what you're looking for here.

 

[samsmart]

Some parents like early education as a way to get back into the workforce with a free babysitter. The problem in my area is that because of limited funds, you either have to be a minority or dumb as dirt to get one of the available slots. If your kid is not one of those two things, you either have to pay for private pre-K or keep your kids at home.

Studies have shown that education at earlier levels are far more important than at later levels, and there is a very distinct, long-term advantage that children get from early education programs.

If you ask me, though, what this means is that we need to spend less money on updating computers in all the classrooms and spend more money on providing those early education programs to more children.

 

[Fisher]

Studies have shown that education at earlier levels are far more important than at later levels, and there is a very distinct, long-term advantage that children get from early education programs.

If you ask me, though, what this means is that we need to spend less money on updating computers in all the classrooms and spend more money on providing those early education programs to more children.

I don't disagree as to the spending, but right now, studies have indicated that early ed loses its positive effects by about 5th grade

 

[wolfman24]

I'm not sure I accept all your assumptions. Schools are largely faced with class size and logistic issues that prevent much individualized approaches. Few teachers enter the profession seeking mediocracy. Instead, they have to deal with overcrowded classrooms, state legislators acting for for voters, all of which have no real understanding, parents who are often less than ideal, and octal problems they can't change or overcome in the classroom. So, I'm not really sure what you're looking for here.

This pretty much hits it on the head. We are constantly blaming the teachers for situations which are in large part out of their control. they must deal with the class size given them the stupid rules given them by state and federal legislatiors and the other moronic aspects of our educational system. Am I saying there are not bad teachers? God no. There are enough to go around. But lets start putting the blame for this mess where it belongs with the state and fedeal gumballs who think they know what they are doing.

 

[wolfman24]

Studies have shown that education at earlier levels are far more important than at later levels, and there is a very distinct, long-term advantage that children get from early education programs.

If you ask me, though, what this means is that we need to spend less money on updating computers in all the classrooms and spend more money on providing those early education programs to more children.

very true.

 

[Mach]

I'm not sure I accept all your assumptions. Schools are largely faced with class size and logistic issues that prevent much individualized approaches. Few teachers enter the profession seeking mediocracy. Instead, they have to deal with overcrowded classrooms, state legislators acting for for voters, all of which have no real understanding, parents who are often less than ideal, and octal problems they can't change or overcome in the classroom. So, I'm not really sure what you're looking for here.

So, your belief is that the public schools system for a variety of reasons, is incapable of addressing high-quality early education? I agree.

I'm specifically inquiring as to whether or not others have heard/seen similar comments from other parents, individuals, or teachers. And, if so, is there some good reasoning behind it that I'm missing, and should be aware of. You really have never heard someone claim that you shouldn't get your child too far ahead because when they enter public it will all even out anyway, or that they may be bored and misbehave?

And, in general, is there cultural incentive to have your child excel in early education, is it neutral, or is there disincentive? It feels, sadly, just like eating healthy and exercising. Being really diligent about those things makes you culturally odd.

Surely you can discuss this without the automatic defend-all-thinks-public-school-union reflex kicking in?

 

[Mach]

I don't disagree as to the spending, but right now, studies have indicated that early ed loses its positive effects by about 5th grade

Isn't that only if they just enter the average school system? If you keep up with it, I assume those early education gains are not "lost". I'd also like to see how they measure those "positive" effects. Is it simply grades, or something more generic they measure like IQ or brain development, innate mental prowess vs the triva they learned. My hypothesis would be that early education helps modify the brain before it gets more "rigid", and whatever changes those are, assuming they are positive, persist.

 

[Fisher]

Isn't that only if they just enter the average school system? If you keep up with it, I assume those early education gains are not "lost". I'd also like to see how they measure those "positive" effects. Is it simply grades, or something more generic they measure like IQ or brain development, innate mental prowess vs the triva they learned. My hypothesis would be that early education helps modify the brain before it gets more "rigid", and whatever changes those are, assuming they are positive, persist.

What I have heard repeated several times is that early education programs like Head Start gave their students an academic leg up early on compared to those who did not attend but by about the 5th grade those students performed comparable to the students who did not attend early ed so there was no measurable difference of a longer-term benefit outside of elementary school grades.

 

[Boo Radley]

So, your belief is that the public schools system for a variety of reasons, is incapable of addressing high-quality early education? I agree.

I'm specifically inquiring as to whether or not others have heard/seen similar comments from other parents, individuals, or teachers. And, if so, is there some good reasoning behind it that I'm missing, and should be aware of. You really have never heard someone claim that you shouldn't get your child too far ahead because when they enter public it will all even out anyway, or that they may be bored and misbehave?

And, in general, is there cultural incentive to have your child excel in early education, is it neutral, or is there disincentive? It feels, sadly, just like eating healthy and exercising. Being really diligent about those things makes you culturally odd.

Surely you can discuss this without the automatic defend-all-thinks-public-school-union reflex kicking in?

No. I believe they need less political involvement and more educational leadership. Most of what I have seen from parents have been wrong headed and part of the problem. Mostly, pass my kid, don't expect performance, let the kid be a kid, give credit for work not done, nothing is my kids fault.

But you speak of excelling, what do you mean? Drill and push? Maybe with a ruler to swat the hand. A regimented pressure filled education? Or an education that moves as fast or as slow as the student, not age dependent, demanding, but in an inquiring way?

 

[imagep]

What I have heard repeated several times is that early education programs like Head Start gave their students an academic leg up early on compared to those who did not attend but by about the 5th grade those students performed comparable to the students who did not attend early ed so there was no measurable difference of a longer-term benefit outside of elementary school grades.

I read an article about that yesterday. It does seem like a waste if it is true. I really can't understand why the head start kids lose there edge in just a few years, I can only assume that since they tend to come from poor families that it is actually their family environment that is tending to "dumb them back down".

 

[Fisher]

I read an article about that yesterday. It does seem like a waste if it is true. I really can't understand why the head start kids lose there edge in just a few years, I can only assume that since they tend to come from poor families that it is actually their family environment that is tending to "dumb them back down".

My assumption has always been 1 of 2 things--either that is because where students start slowly switching over to more critical learning; or, more likely, puberty. 5th-8th grades are largely unproductive grades because of hormones for a lot of people. It seems like a lot of kids start to derail academically there and not that many of them are ever able to get back on track by HS when your grades follow you for the rest of your life.

 

[Layla_Z]

I don't disagree as to the spending, but right now, studies have indicated that early ed loses its positive effects by about 5th grade

Doesn't that mean that the positive effects last for almost half of the child's public school education?

Early education is great for kids who need to learn the structure of school and how to behave away from home. Sometimes kids who have never been in pre-school come to kindergarten and struggle because they don't know how to act.

I really hate the "dumb as dirt" comment from above, not from Fisher. Some children have trouble learning do to prematurity and other issues. Pre-school is excellent for them and can prevent problems that would have occured upon entering kindergarten.

 

[Layla_Z]

What I have heard repeated several times is that early education programs like Head Start gave their students an academic leg up early on compared to those who did not attend but by about the 5th grade those students performed comparable to the students who did not attend early ed so there was no measurable difference of a longer-term benefit outside of elementary school grades.

Couldn't the students who were in head start be behind the other students if they hadn't attended head start?

 

[Fisher]

Doesn't that mean that the positive effects last for almost half of the child's public school education?

Early education is great for kids who need to learn the structure of school and how to behave away from home. Sometimes kids who have never been in pre-school come to kindergarten and struggle because they don't know how to act.

I really hate the "dumb as dirt" comment from above, not from Fisher. Some children have trouble learning do to prematurity and other issues. Pre-school is excellent for them and can prevent problems that would have occured upon entering kindergarten.

You may not like the "dumb as dirt" comment, but it is true in my area. I know a woman who purposefully didn't teach her kid anything like numbers or letters or any reading because she wanted to be able to get him into pre-K without having to pay for it (which in itself is pretty messed up to me) but his evaluation still left him as not needing it and therefore not eligible for free pre-k.

 

[Fisher]

Couldn't the students who were in head start be behind the other students if they hadn't attended head start?

Possibly, I guess it depends on the child. I have no problem with free pre-K or Headstart. The numbers just don't create a measurable long term benefit over those who did not attend. The question for me really isn't why isn't it working better, but what is going wrong, if anything, in the middle grades to derail the progress.

 

[Layla_Z]

You may not like the "dumb as dirt" comment, but it is true in my area. I know a woman who purposefully didn't teach her kid anything like numbers or letters or any reading because she wanted to be able to get him into pre-K without having to pay for it (which in itself is pretty messed up to me) but his evaluation still left him as not needing it and therefore not eligible for free pre-k.

It's true here that the only free pre-school is for students who have some sort of developmental delay. My problem is with calling any child "dumb as dirt," especially since I know several children with developmental delays who attended pre-school and now are on the honor roll.

 

[Layla_Z]

Possibly, I guess it depends on the child. I have no problem with free pre-K or Headstart. The numbers just don't create a measurable long term benefit over those who did not attend. The question for me really isn't why isn't it working better, but what is going wrong, if anything, in the middle grades to derail the progress.

Middle school is where kids do seem to go wrong. Parents become less involved, the work gets dramatically more difficult, hormones kick in. I do think kids benefit from pre-K programs. My making them more successful in those early grades the are more prepared for the higher grades even if the benefits seem to disappear.

 

[Fisher]

It's true here that the only free pre-school is for students who have some sort of developmental delay. My problem is with calling any child "dumb as dirt," especially since I know several children with developmental delays who attended pre-school and now are on the honor roll.

While "Developmentally Delayed" contains the proper American alliteration, it lacks the southern color of simile which is further devoid of the connotations of anything "Developmentally" being code for mentally disabled/handicapped You say potato, I say tater....

 

[imagep]

You may not like the "dumb as dirt" comment, but it is true in my area. I know a woman who purposefully didn't teach her kid anything like numbers or letters or any reading because she wanted to be able to get him into pre-K without having to pay for it (which in itself is pretty messed up to me) but his evaluation still left him as not needing it and therefore not eligible for free pre-k.

I had some experience with that. I had my kid enrolled in a private daycare, and I was really looking forward to being able to avoid paying for private daycare when my child entered 4K. The summer before we expected him to start, we had to take him to the school for testing. We were told that they had plenty of spots available. Then two weeks before he was supposed to start, we were told that he did too well on the tests and that he didn't qualify because he already knew his 123's and ABC's. I was really pissed. If I had realized what the testing was for, I would have told him to go in and act retarded.

 

[Fisher]

I had some experience with that. I had my kid enrolled in a private daycare, and I was really looking forward to being able to avoid paying for private daycare when my child entered 4K. The summer before we expected him to start, we had to take him to the school for testing. We were told that they had plenty of spots available. Then two weeks before he was supposed to start, we were told that he did too well on the tests and that he didn't qualify because he already knew his 123's and ABC's. I was really pissed. If I had realized what the testing was for, I would have told him to go in and act retarded.

LOL. I told her she needed to teach him wrong not not teach him.

We are doing private school. They can decide for themselves when they reach HS, but until then, I am not putting them into public schools except maybe some of the summer programs. Our school system is in disarray with budget cuts and schools being shuffled around. We have a couple really good affordable private schools that keep their tuition down by renting space from churches that are not really religious schools per se so it is worth it to me. Plus, I have zero tolerance for bureaucrats strictly adhering to their zero tolerance policies.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

My assumption has always been 1 of 2 things--either that is because where students start slowly switching over to more critical learning; or, more likely, puberty. 5th-8th grades are largely unproductive grades because of hormones for a lot of people. It seems like a lot of kids start to derail academically there and not that many of them are ever able to get back on track by HS when your grades follow you for the rest of your life.

The head start benefits become "erased" at about 3rd or 4th grade, iirc.
I believe that's because these children are not progressed at the pace at which their knowledge level is rated at, when they are introduced to K+ schooling.
Basically, the non head start kids, still have to be taught all that information, so the head start kids must wait.

The system re-paces them at the grade level they're supposed to be at.

 

[KevinKohler]

I had some experience with that. I had my kid enrolled in a private daycare, and I was really looking forward to being able to avoid paying for private daycare when my child entered 4K. The summer before we expected him to start, we had to take him to the school for testing. We were told that they had plenty of spots available. Then two weeks before he was supposed to start, we were told that he did too well on the tests and that he didn't qualify because he already knew his 123's and ABC's. I was really pissed. If I had realized what the testing was for, I would have told him to go in and act retarded.

Wait, what?


My girl is 3 1/2, and will be going for that test pretty soon as well...

So, they didn't accept your son into SCHOOL......because he already KNEW too much? Really? Did you argue with them? Like, what was their reasoning....not enough spots for smart people, we really need to educate the dumb ones first?