Pre-school for kids: does it really work?

[Ed Anger]

I can't have kids interfering in my NCAA 12 time.

DADDY, SHOTGUN!
It's 1st and 10 honey. Suggest a real play.

[viper37]

3-4's probably too young to learn reading and writing or maths, surely?  Though I think pre-school's a good idea I thought it was more to do with structured play - so learning colours and things like that as well as the socialisation.

Also I'm with Ide, don't see what's outrageous about it at all.

Well my little guy isn't there yet obviously, so I'm no expert, but even at 3-4 I think kids can start learning letters and numbers.

I've no problem with the learning.  I knew how to read&write before I first attented school.  My sorta stepsister's kids are learning to read and count (2&4 years old) and I think it's great.

It's about the structured aspect to it, with homework&all, that I have some... unease.

[viper37]

I would certainly draw a line at straight-up paying all child-rearing expenses, but a program that would permit mothers (and/or fathers) to reenter the workforce rapidly, without burdening them with daycare costs?  Sure.  I mean, if a major portion of your income is going to paying someone to watch out for your kid, it's a huge disincentive against working.

I approved of the program on this basis.
Then it turned out middle class parents were excluded because it was apparently a good idea for wellfarer's to put their kids there.
We have a shortage of places in these daycares.  Lots of parents who should benefit from these don't.

In the old system, the parents received a yearly allocation, based on wealth, from the government and generous tax credits.  That was working rather well.
Of course, there were parents using this money to buy cigarettes & drugs.  Still, it was better for every parent to benefit from this than only a few as it is now, with everyone paying the full costs.

It also has the advantage of being harder to abuse other forms of redistribution, e.g. cash payments.  Finally, it would directly create jobs--indeed, jobs for stupid people, since the only basic requirement for looking after small children is to not be a pedophile.*

Why do you hate jobs?

*Well, one would think.  These days you probably need an M.A. to provide any services to a child you didn't create with your own genetic material.

You now need a college degree at least to be an educator, and they successfully claimed they are doing the same job as an elementary school teacher so they deserve the same yearly salaries, even if they don't have a university degree.

[MadImmortalMan]

I can't have kids interfering in my NCAA 12 time.

DADDY, SHOTGUN!
It's 1st and 10 honey. Suggest a real play.

She can coach in the Big East...

[Ed Anger]

I can't have kids interfering in my NCAA 12 time.

DADDY, SHOTGUN!
It's 1st and 10 honey. Suggest a real play.

She can coach in the Big East...

I'd be disappointed then. Big least? yuck.

[dps]

Read some studies years ago that suggested that pre-school or Head Start put kids ahead of their classmates for the first 2 or 3 grades of elementary school, but after that there was no difference in acedemic performance.  So it's probably a waste of money, as far as actual education is concerned.

[merithyn]

I've long felt that preschool was unnecessary to the long-term education of children. However, the lack of a preschool education is extremely detrimental to children in the first couple of years of regular education in our society today.

The skills taught in preschool are basically "how to behave in a classroom when the teacher is talking", and the most basic of educational materials.

It wasn't uncommon for my children's kindergarten teacher to suggest to the parents of children who had not attended preschool first that their child be tested for ADD or ADHD. Why? Because they hadn't learned to sit still and pay attention. Of course these children didn't have any kind of disorder at all, rather they had just not yet learned how to do so as they hadn't had preschool to teach it to them. Not only that, but to "test" into kindergarten, my kids had to be able to count to 20, know the 10 most basic colors, read simple words like "the", "have", etc., and know their left from their right (though they might get a pass on that last one).

Personally, I think it's stupid. I think the earliest a kid should go to school is six, and prior to that they should be allowed to play and enjoy themselves. However, given the structure of the system our kids are in, one really can't do that without putting your kids in a very difficult position once they actually make it to school.

[Ideologue]

What are the ten most basic colors?

[HVC]

What are the ten most basic colors?

ROYGBIV and the shades?

[HVC]

or i guess you can throw in pink, brown, in there instead of some of the shades.

[Admiral Yi]

Now, now, I don't have to.

I would certainly draw a line at straight-up paying all child-rearing expenses, but a program that would permit mothers (and/or fathers) to reenter the workforce rapidly, without burdening them with daycare costs?  Sure.  I mean, if a major portion of your income is going to paying someone to watch out for your kid, it's a huge disincentive against working.

It also has the advantage of being harder to abuse other forms of redistribution, e.g. cash payments.  Finally, it would directly create jobs--indeed, jobs for stupid people, since the only basic requirement for looking after small children is to not be a pedophile.*

Why do you hate jobs?

*Well, one would think.  These days you probably need an M.A. to provide any services to a child you didn't create with your own genetic material.

"Major portion of income" and "redistribution" indicate you think we're talking about a poverty program.  It's not.  No income/wealth test, yuppies stealing spots from gammas.

[dps]

There are 3 primary colors.  "The ten basic colors" must be some bullshit Illiinois thing.

Well, given the political system in Illinois, it's probably green, green, green, green, green, green, green, green, green, and green.

[Ideologue]

Yeah, at a guess, I'd suppose the correct answer is probably ROYGBIV, black, white, and brown (or gray).

But I mean, it's all made up crap.  Many people don't really characterize indigo as a separate color anymore, blue and green are considered the same color (or color range) in Japan, black isn't a color, white is a mixture of colors, as is purple, and if you were a bird you'd consider ultraviolet A a primary additive color, and so on.  I think naming ten "basic" ones is a little arbitrary, and at best would serve to test the child's ability to memorize things.

Also, test in to kindergarten?  What do they do for stupid/uneducated children?

[Ideologue]

There are 3 primary colors.  "The ten basic colors" must be some bullshit Illiinois thing.

Well, given the political system in Illinois, it's probably green, green, green, green, green, green, green, green, green, and green.

Is Illinois a left-wing haven, Muslim, or a stronghold for Ukrainian democrats?

[Ideologue]

Now, now, I don't have to.

I would certainly draw a line at straight-up paying all child-rearing expenses, but a program that would permit mothers (and/or fathers) to reenter the workforce rapidly, without burdening them with daycare costs?  Sure.  I mean, if a major portion of your income is going to paying someone to watch out for your kid, it's a huge disincentive against working.

It also has the advantage of being harder to abuse other forms of redistribution, e.g. cash payments.  Finally, it would directly create jobs--indeed, jobs for stupid people, since the only basic requirement for looking after small children is to not be a pedophile.*

Why do you hate jobs?

*Well, one would think.  These days you probably need an M.A. to provide any services to a child you didn't create with your own genetic material.

"Major portion of income" and "redistribution" indicate you think we're talking about a poverty program.  It's not.  No income/wealth test, yuppies stealing spots from gammas.

No, I know it's not.  The point is that I like government programs available to everyone.  A library versus a bookstore.