Here's Your Opportunity To Comment On "Universal Preschool" Proposed By Pres. Obama

[snbauser]

I highly doubt that the government is going to insist we teach children concepts that are not DAP. It will still be about teaching appropriate social skills, self-care and self-regulation. Additionally they will learn basics like colors/shapes/alphabet, etc. BUT, they should be being taught that anyway. Of course it should be in the context of play based experiences, not rote memorization or "dittos", and from what I am seeing as an independent consultant for Head Start, at least here, is that government funded programs ARE practicing this now.....it isn't going to change the way children SHOULD be taught, it is going to weed out the mediocre programs with providers that are in the field for a "paycheck" so that they can stay home with their own children. I agree it is best to stay home with your own children, but if you are caring for other people's children and doing a half-assed job of it, then "you" need to be forced out of the field.

Although I agree with this I am concerned about the fact that we may be forced to partner with a program like Head Start in order to stay in business. I think that maybe there should be something that requires programs that are lower quality to partner with them but those of us that go above and beyond to provide a quality, DAP program should not be required to abandon our programs in order to work with another agency. I worked long and hard to become a successful 5 star preschool program and have scored high on all of my FCCERS evaluations. I think that the politics involved will be messy. If I have to follow their program are they going to pay for my materials, my training, my salary, etc? Are my parents going to end up paying them? Are they going to give me paid time to do all my paperwork and evaluations? Are they going to provide substitutes when I need a day off or am ill? Will I in escense be working for them? I agree that lower quality programs need to be weeded out but I'm not sure this is the way to do it. And I think there needs to be a lot more information on the "how" before I can form an honest opinion.

[Willow]

With the exception of desperately poor children who have desperately low functioning parents. Translation is the children would do better because they are out of the poor environment for a portion of the day. NOT because the environment is an educational environment but because its better CARE than the home environment.

This I get.

But at most participation should be optional and there should be no repercussions for providers choosing not to be involved.

[snbauser]

Oh and I did a partial internship at our local Head Start and would not send my children there if I had to. I worked in a 3 y/o room and there was no structure, no discipline, very little learning, and no support for the teachers. So from my experience, partnering with Head Start is not all it is cracked up to be.

[Willow]

To the bolded above. Wow. Just wow.

What about that do you have a problem with?

If I want something I buy it.

I don't expect you to buy it. I don't expect my neighbors to buy it. I work, make money, and I buy it myself.

I contribute to charities of my choice and am incredibly generous....but I don't believe I should be forced to buy things some people in this country want that I don't believe are ethical or productive investments, nor things that they refuse to pay for themselves.

[Blackcat31]

Oh and I did a partial internship at our local Head Start and would not send my children there if I had to. I worked in a 3 y/o room and there was no structure, no discipline, very little learning, and no support for the teachers. So from my experience, partnering with Head Start is not all it is cracked up to be.

The CONCEPT of Head Start is admirable. My actual experiences there as a classroom teacher and home visit specialist were eye opening to say the least.

I am NOT speaking for all Head Starts but I can tell you truthfully that the goal of our Head Start on paper and in theory was to support families in gaining self sufficiency and for their children to have a "head start" compared to other children when they did get to school but for some reason the actions of our Head Start were to simply enable the parents/families we served and to spend grant money faster than we were awarded it. After all, if all those families suddenly became self-sufficient, there would be an awful lot of state/county workers without jobs.

[canadiancare]

So if the government just said "elementary school now starts at age 4, it is not compulsory but it is available" would you have a problem with that?

Here you must go to school or be home schooled by age 6 but Junior and senior kindergartens are not mandatory- if you as a parent decide to keep your child home, send them to daycare or whatever it is up to you.

In googling a bit of US political stuff I think I fell in love with Bernie Sanders

[Blackcat31]

With the exception of desperately poor children who have desperately low functioning parents. Translation is the children would do better because they are out of the poor environment for a portion of the day. NOT because the environment is an educational environment but because its better CARE than the home environment.

I would love to spend a majority of my day teaching children academic concepts and educational things but I am far to busy teaching them how to have life skills, manner, respect and social skills. (which I believe come from QUALITY EARLY CARE NOT EDUCATION)

If children came to me with GOOD food in their bellies, a good nights sleep and manners each day I would be thrilled but too many parents have to focus on working to make even minimum wage to support their families that little time is left for them to "parent" their child so it is left to me to do.

Kids aren't going to succeed in life solely on academics. They need LIFE skills.

ALL of which they should be getting before age 5 but most aren't getting at all. So instead we see a bunch of kids graduating high school with great academic records but zero clue how to act in public, how to live on their own or function as an adult. The proof is in households across America with 30-something year olds with college degrees still living at home with their parents because they have no common sense and no idea how to care for themselves.

[nannyde]

The CONCEPT of Head Start is admirable. My actual experiences there as a classroom teacher and home visit specialist were eye opening to say the least.

I am NOT speaking for all Head Starts but I can tell you truthfully that the goal of our Head Start on paper and in theory was to support families in gaining self sufficiency and for their children to have a "head start" compared to other children when they did get to school but for some reason the actions of our Head Start were to simply enable the parents/families we served and to spend grant money faster than we were awarded it. After all, if all those families suddenly became self-sufficient, there would be an awful lot of state/county workers without jobs.

head start is a SOCIAL program not an educational program. They have zero accountability to prove academic advantage. They are not independently tested. There isnt a single bit of longitudinal data that shows hs kids fare better academy compared to their peers.

[Blackcat31]

head start is a SOCIAL program not an educational program. They have zero accountability to prove academic advantage. They are not independently tested. There isnt a single bit of longitudinal data that shows hs kids fare better academy compared to their peers.

But according to our star ratings program, ALL Head Starts are automatically awarded 4 stars.

I was told they are the "model of success".

[CedarCreek]

I agree with whoever said that the idea is admirable but the reality is probably flawed. And also that the money would be better spent finding a way for parents to spend a little more time with their children. Sorry, i'm paraphrasing.

I was a low income child who attended hs. I remember a lot of playing. A LOT. I learned more with my mother at home. I could read before I started hs. My mother was frequently complimented on all four of her childrens manners when we were out and about. She loved to take books and apply them to real things. If she was reading me a book about trees, we went outside and touched the trees and noted different ones and talked about how old they were and why we need them. And she was a single mother.

[Willow]

So if the government just said "elementary school now starts at age 4, it is not compulsory but it is available" would you have a problem with that?
[/URL]

Holy buckets YES.

[Willow]

I agree with whoever said that the idea is admirable but the reality is probably flawed. And also that the money would be better spent finding a way for parents to spend a little more time with their children. Sorry, i'm paraphrasing.

I was a low income child who attended hs. I remember a lot of playing. A LOT. I learned more with my mother at home. I could read before I started hs. My mother was frequently complimented on all four of her childrens manners when we were out and about. She loved to take books and apply them to real things. If she was reading me a book about trees, we went outside and touched the trees and noted different ones and talked about how old they were and why we need them. And she was a single mother.

[Country Kids]

But according to our star ratings program, ALL Head Starts are automatically awarded 4 stars.

I was told they are the "model of success".

UUGGHH this is why I really wonder about this STARS program. It really, really reminds me of the food program. Goverment run/funded but different standards for ALL states.

Our HS will not automatically get any STARS. They will have to become licensed through our state like all childcares/go through the same inspections and have to follow the same rules that the childcares do.

I find this really interesting that they will have to do this as I think they would have to change alot of things they do in order to follow these guidelines.

[AmyLeigh]

So if the government just said "elementary school now starts at age 4, it is not compulsory but it is available" would you have a problem with that?

Here you must go to school or be home schooled by age 6 but Junior and senior kindergartens are not mandatory- if you as a parent decide to keep your child home, send them to daycare or whatever it is up to you.

In googling a bit of US political stuff I think I fell in love with Bernie Sanders

Actually, that is how some states are set up. Compulsory education varies from ages 5 to 8, depending on the states' laws. But most people send their children to K at age 5, regardless. So that is why politicians don't see making it available at age 4 any different.

[snbauser]

UUGGHH this is why I really wonder about this STARS program. It really, really reminds me of the food program. Goverment run/funded but different standards for ALL states.

Our HS will not automatically get any STARS. They will have to become licensed through our state like all childcares/go through the same inspections and have to follow the same rules that the childcares do.

I find this really interesting that they will have to do this as I think they would have to change alot of things they do in order to follow these guidelines.

Our headstart is already under our licensing regulations and each site is rated based on their own merits...or whatever show they can put on.