-
-
Me too...that is why I REFUSE to respond to unregistered and/or guests.Originally posted by MN Mom View Post/Sniff Sniff
Does anyone smell diarrhea? I do.
Comment
-
We are keeping an eye on them. Seem to originate in the Los Angeles area.
Comment
-
Obviously skewed
I am aghast at the lack of compassion and understanding for both parent and child from the users on this site. Mostly, I am appalled at the complete disregard for the needs of children while the convenience of the teacher/administrators are clearly the priority over the child here. I am myself a teacher and I certainly believe that satisfying the needs of parents, children and teachers alike are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
This particular child is obviously in need of progressing intellectually, regardless of his physical deficits, just like any other child with challenges. And yes, I can certainly see how potty training would be delayed by a lack of focus and attention. I have, on several occasions delayed my own restore use (like we all have) because I have had other pressing matters. Can you imagine what that feeling must be like for a 3-year-old who is (age-appropriately) illogical?
I might also mention that if this child were part of the public system, he would very likely have an IEP or section 504, making his accommodation a federal mandate. The teacher and facility may be fined, sued and even prosecuted for not meeting his needs. The right to a free and equal education is constitutional and if it would appear that is individual did not receive one, he would be entitled to support that is publicly funded.
My point is that this boy is 3-years-old right now but all too soon he will be an adult, burdened by all the hang-ups, baggage and injury of life. Shouldn't we assume the responsibility of avoiding potential developmental deficits in the years that are the most fundamental? As a high school teacher, try as I might, some students are no longer "reachable" at their level and emotional state.
Lastly, as a parent, I cringe at the thought of just about every adult at his school directly or indirectly rejecting this child. I used to think that a 3-year-old was not likely to perceive this subtle response but speaking to my 3-year-old, non-potty-trained, remarkably intelligent but physically delayed, preemie twin daughter, I realized that her feelings were genuinely hurt by her teachers telling other children what a great job they've done when they went potty while my daughter consistently waits in line patiently, raises her hand, says please and thank you, uses her words instead of her hands when she is frustrated and sits on the potty and waits and waits and waits for something to happen.
While she can say her alphabet, letters, shapes, colors, numbers and even do a bit of sight reading, she can't understand why all of her old friends and, perhaps soon, her twin sister are able to advance to the three year old room but she must stay behind.
Perhaps the money we pay to daycare is not such a good value in the end.
Both my twin girls are currently on a waiting list for a different daycare as well as 2 other children from our current private daycare. One of the parents has referred me to a district-run daycare and I am not at all surprised to find that more of these are to open soon. I also heard that a local private daycare closed this fall for lack of enrollment and our own daycare's director has said that, despite the school's celebrity enrollment, general local enrollment has declined.
As my own students often remark, "just sayin"!Comment
-
Your whole post is a mine field of misinformation and assumptions.Originally posted by LAUSD teacher View Post
First: A barely new three year old shouldn't HAVE a diagnosis of ADHD. He's way way way too young to give him a diagnosis like that that would qualify him under the disabiilty act you are referring to by saying the Center could be sued or fined.
At his young age it is OKAY to keep him with two year olds. Only in THIS generation of parents have we had a notion that there's an "age difference" between a two and three year old. Since the begining of time children have played together and grown up together with significantly greater age and developmental differences. It's okay for him to play with one year olds or five year olds. It doesn't matter.
The dividing kids under five up by age year is not because of developmental reasons but mostly for MONEY. Centers are allowed a higher child to adult ratio with each advancing age group. The more kids per adult the more money. In real life these kids can easily play with kids within two to three years of each other either way. It's not a sacrifice to this child to play with kids who are a year younger than him. The whole idea of that is rediculous and a product of our silly notion that kids under five need an "education".
At his age he needs good food, good sleep, good supervision, good toys, and some kids to hang out with. He doesn't need an academic program. He needs to have his behavior dealt with and his self help skills focused on. If they can offer that in the two room at a higher adult to child ratio it's in everybodys best interest to keep him with the younger kids so what's REALLY important will be worked on.
We need to stop interjecting little tiny kids "educational needs" into child care. We are robbing them of their younger years by muddling it up with stuff that won't matter a lick once they are in school. If this child has a full preschool program from now until he's five he won't stand one iota of chance of having a better long term outcome than a child who didn't have a minute of school before he is five. There's NO educational or social outcomes that are measurable that are wrought from a full academic program in early childhood. There isn't a stitch of research that will offer that kids who have had school before the age of five do better in ANY measurable way. They don't graduate at a higher rate, they don't score better on any standardized testing, they don't have less teen pregnancy, they don't get better grades, they don't have less expulsions, they don't make any more money as adults and on and on.
So standing on the premise that we have to DO now to protect his future is not backed up in any way with longitudinal research. Only POOR children from very deprived environments fare better with early intervention and that is soley because they are PHYSICALLY removed from that environment during a significant portion of their waking time.. NOT because the EDUCATION makes any difference.
You said: As a high school teacher, try as I might, some students are no longer "reachable" at their level and emotional state.
If you were pulled into your principals office and given the names of 100 of your students who you had taught all year long and told that thirty of them had a full preschool program between the ages of two and five and you were tasked to pick out those 30 kids based on what you know of them over the course of a full year of high school... you wouldn't be able to pick them out if your career depended on it. There's NOTHING they come to you with in the high school years that is a direct result of a full academic program in early childhood.
The "value" of child care is in the CARE of the kids for their most fundamental needs: food, sleep, supervision, having approriate materials, discipline, and of course a tender loving adult.Comment
-
Are you kidding me?? Before you go spouting off that there is no research to date on the educational benefits of a preschool program, do a little homework.Originally posted by nannyde View Post
Comment
-
I just wrote an entire Argumentative Research paper for school talking about the long term (and short term) benefits of high quality early childhood education. I used a lot of information from the site you listed as well as the following sites:Originally posted by kendallina View Post
ALL of which give clear long term benefits to high quality early childhood education. I am sure there are alot of counter arguments out there but I, for one, am inclined to buy into the benefits; both short and long term.Comment
-
I've read that before. Isn't that for LOW INCOME multirisked families?Originally posted by kendallina View Post
I said Only POOR children from very deprived environments fare better with early interventionComment
-
Black: I said low income kids profit: I'll add primarily African American males. You just gave another set of examples of POOR kids gaining from preschool. The problem we have in this society is that we take research on poor kids and somehow generate it to the "schooling" of lower middle class, middle class, and upper middle class kids... WHICH ARE THE BLUNT OF OUR POPULATION.Originally posted by Blackcat31 View PostI just wrote an entire Argumentative Research paper for school talking about the long term (and short term) benefits of high quality early childhood education. I used a lot of information from the site you listed as well as the following sites:
ALL of which give clear long term benefits to high quality early childhood education. I am sure there are alot of counter arguments out there but I, for one, am inclined to buy into the benefits; both short and long term.
There's not research out there that I know of that studies the blunt of our two thru five year olds and shows that preschool has ANY significant difference on any subsect of the population BUT poor kids. I don't think any of us here ... without degrees in rocket scientry... would suggest otherwise. It's common sense. The problem I have is when it gets applied year after year by proponents of preschool for us to integrate this research into our programs that don't serve poor kids. I have a problem as a tax payer paying for preschool programs that don't exclusively serve low income kids.
The OP's kid was barely three. NO need to switch the kid in with age mates for education. Unless the OP's kid was a poor kid then no need for an education any way. Going to "school" at age FIVE as a Kindergartener will net the same results as if he didn't have a lick of school before the age of five.
Your sources:
highscope was for poor kids. The Perry Preschool Project began in 1962 in Ypsilanti, Michigan, with a sample of 123 low-income, "at-risk" children.
The present study provides follow-up data for one cohort of low-income, minority children who had attended two years of school (preschool and kindergarten) prior to entering first grade. (this study was with kids who did preschool AND Kindergarten). I'm not saying KINDERGARTEN doesn't affect oucomes.
This is another study INCLUDING Kindergarten kids. I'm specifically talking about two or three to five year olds as the OP discussed.
This is a good study to read but not for the reasons you state. What's interesting about this study is the high correlation to success based on the Mother's educational level. But I digress.......
A few snippets:
Pre-K participation was associated with more positive outcomes than other preschool experiences on 11 of 16 measures. However, in no case was the difference statistically significant during the first grade. This is not an assessment of the effectiveness of Georgia Pre-K: children who participated in the Pre-K program gained more skills than they began with relative to the national norms. The growth of skills for these Pre-K children is parallel to the growth of other children, including those in private programs
and Head Start. One way to interpret these findings is that children enrolled in private programs and Head Start, which is almost two times as costly as Georgia Pre-K (Barnett, et al 2004), developed skills at the same rate as children in the Pre-K program.
The corollary, if true, means that children from families that
are economically better off would also benefit from high quality preschool.
In this study, we found that the Georgia Pre-K program does produce higher levels of skills among children of very poor and working poor families. Children from families that received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and children from working poor families were able to identify more letters and words at the end of firstgrade if they attended the Georgia Pre-K program. Furthermore, attending the Georgia Pre-K program appeared to help children from lower income families close the gap between themselves and their more advantaged peers in letter and word identification.
However, more support for economically disadvantaged children may be needed.
The average age of participants upon their entry into preschool was 4.5 years and was 5.5 upon their entry into kindergarten.
However, the children lost ground with respect to the national
norms on several assessments during their first grade year. By the end of the first grade, nearly 10% of the children in the GECS had been retained at least one year. These children were highly concentrated within the group of children whose mothers had not completed high school.
Interestingly, the children who did not attend any preschoolscored equal to or higher than the children who attended Georgia Pre-K and Head Start on teacher ratings of readiness.
Gains Relative to National NormsGeorgia students posted significant gains against the national norms for children of their age on their problem-solving skills throughout the study period (Figure 2.10). Preschool students began that school year (96.9) slightly behind the national norm (100). However,they had met the norm by the beginning of kindergarten and well exceeded it by the end of first grade (109.3). The pattern is similar for the entire sample including students who did not attend a formal preschool.
Although the effects of attending Pre-K on other skills, such as math fluency, expressive vocabulary and problem-solving were generally positive for these same groups of children, these effects were not significant (Table 5.2). Because the added benefits from attending Pre-K for other skills measured at the end of first grade were not statistically significant, we will focus on the analysis of the four skills that were measured from the end of first grade.
beginning of preschool through the end of first grade.
One goal of the Georgia Early Childhood Study was to determine whether Georgia’s Pre- K Program had any effects on children who may have been at-risk of school failure and to establish whether these children received benefits that were greater than or less than those of other children. Positive effects on these groups indicate that they profited from their participation in the Pre-K Program over and above the benefits received by other groups. Additionally, the study tested these effects by level of income. Our findings indicate that poor children benefited more from participation in Pre-K than children in families with middle or higher incomes.
The Pre-K Program also had a positive effect on students whose families were
categorized as ‘working poor,’ meaning they were eligible for means tested benefits, such as Food Stamps and Medicaid but earned too much to qualify for TANF. For this population, Pre-K significantly improved the ability of these children to recognize letters and words (Table 5.4). Except for receptive language, the effects of Pre-K were positive for these children from working poor families though the differences were insignificant.
I could do more but you get the point. Preschool makes a difference for poor kids.
The Chicago Longitudinal Study (CLS; Reynolds, 1991, 1999; Reynolds, Bezruczko, Hagemann, 1997) investigates the educational and social development of a same-age cohort of 1,539 low-income, minority children (93% African American) who grew up in high-poverty neighborhoods in
central-city Chicago and attended government-funded kindergarten programs in the Chicago Public Schools in 1985-1986.
The Abecedarian project was a carefully controlled scientific study of the potential benefits of early childhood education for poor children.Comment
-
do a little homework Tell me about one longitudinal study that EXCLUDES poor children and that shows that there is ANY significant difference in any measurable outcome academically, socially, behaviorally between children who attended a full preschool program from two to five or three to five compared to children who did not have any preschool at all.Originally posted by kendallina View Post
My theory is it doesn't exist because it doesn't exist. Nobody is going to fund a study that has an outcome we already know.
The problem I see with Early Childhood Education and Educators is that they base their foundation of edcuation for two to five year olds based solely on research from poor kids and extrapolate that into the BLUNT of the population. It works it's way into our pocketbooks as taxpayers and it really works it's way into State Regs and our day to day life as providers. In my State the vast vast majority of "training" above foundational emergency/safety training (cpr, first aid, mandatory reporter) is educating kids training.
I want our school money going to Elementary school aged kids and preschool for poor kids. I don't want our money going to preschool programs for the masses when there's no pay off for that. We start kids in school at age five for a reason. That's the age where it PAYS to start educating kids because that's the age where they are developmentally ready to receive the education. (excluding poor kids of course)
As a provider I get tired of having society expect we do educational programs for young kids who are not economically disadvantaged. We are focusing their care on stuff that doesn't really matter in the end. We need to focus on good FOOD, good supervision, good materials for FREE PLAY, and EXERCISE. I want America's birth to five crowd to be talented and gifted in sleep, exercise, healthy eating, and free play under close supervision. That's the recipe for a five year old being raring to go in Kindy. We need to get back to the ways of our ancestors and look at what REALLY matters.Comment
-
Yes if child has IEP
They're protected by law from being held back or discriminated againstComment
-
what about parents who are too lazy to start potty training of own children?Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
They are holding back own children. No one else.Comment
-
Wow this thread is old but you bring up a great point.Originally posted by ColorfulSunburst View Post
I thought my DD had ADD or ADHD at one point when she was little. Our life was awful, she hit me, screamed at me, basically abused me. It wasn't because I was lazy though. It was because I was guilt parenting and guess what? I had to get over it. She is great now, an awesome child, but it is because she knows she ain't getting over on us. Right now she has a C in her AP English. She is in 10th grade and never gets a C. She is in some "trouble", meaning no fun time on the computer until she gets her grade up. This is the most trouble she has given me in years
. But I wish we could teach all parents that sometimes behavior begets behavior and sometimes PARENTS are the reason for their kids issues. I know I was, I was loving her right into problems. I changed the way I "love" her to a way that would be more productive in her future, and it made a huge difference. Guess what??? She doesn't hate me .
Comment
-
Originally posted by Thriftylady View PostWow this thread is old but you bring up a great point.
I I was loving her right into problems. I changed the way I "love" her to a way that would be more productive in her future, and it made a huge difference. Guess what??? She doesn't hate me.
My comment has nothing to do with OP , just had to say:"Wish you could have a chat with some of the parents I deal with"Comment
Tweet
Comment