Not The Only Country Debating This...

[Heidi]

The pitfalls and virtues of "early education".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24058227

[Cat Herder]

My understanding is that it has been proven time and time again that this *value* only applies to "low income" kids.

IMHO, it really has nothing to do with income.... it comes with parental neglect that politicians like to gloss over as "low income".

Flame suit zipped.

**** I was as low income as humanly possible... my parents (young teens) wanted better for me so they walked me to the public library, taught me to write in sand with sticks, had me count birds/kids/dogs, talked with me, read to me, sent me to public schools, hovered over me to make me do my homework, drilled spelling words/test questions with me, made me go to after school tutoring, and took me to soup kitchens/shelters/rehab parking lots to let me see how hard life is for people who don't try to make life better.

All of that was free, btw.

I also have issue with paying low income families higher rates for having more kids. It is wrong. It is essentially paying them to have more kids they cannot support that falls to the rest of us. Simple math tells you it cannot work.

[Laurel]

My understanding is that it has been proven time and time again that this *value* only applies to "low income" kids.

IMHO, it really has nothing to do with income.... it comes with parental neglect that politicians like to gloss over as "low income".

Flame suit zipped.

**** I was as low income as humanly possible... my parents (young teens) wanted better for me so they walked me to the public library, taught me to write in sand with sticks, had me count birds/kids/dogs, talked with me, read to me, sent me to public schools, hovered over me to make me do my homework, drilled spelling words/test questions with me, made me go to after school tutoring, and took me to soup kitchens/shelters/rehab parking lots to let me see how hard life is for people who don't try to make life better.

All of that was free, btw.

I agree with you 100%.

If you remember we were having a discussion of school vouchers a while back and I spent pretty much time looking up things about how it was working. Most cities where it was tried it was tried only on low income children. One study said that sending a poor child to another school in the burbs was not having the result they had anticipated. If a child did well in a burb school it was because they had been the highest preforming in their inner city school. They attributed it to just exactly what you said.

Laurel

[MarinaVanessa]

My understanding is that it has been proven time and time again that this *value* only applies to "low income" kids.

IMHO, it really has nothing to do with income.... it comes with parental neglect that politicians like to gloss over as "low income".

Flame suit zipped.

**** I was as low income as humanly possible... my parents (young teens) wanted better for me so they walked me to the public library, taught me to write in sand with sticks, had me count birds/kids/dogs, talked with me, read to me, sent me to public schools, hovered over me to make me do my homework, drilled spelling words/test questions with me, made me go to after school tutoring, and took me to soup kitchens/shelters/rehab parking lots to let me see how hard life is for people who don't try to make life better.

All of that was free, btw.

I also have issue with paying low income families higher rates for having more kids. It is wrong. It is essentially paying them to have more kids they cannot support that falls to the rest of us. Simple math tells you it cannot work.

Sorry, I also agree.

[Blackcat31]

Sorry, I also agree.

I also agree with Cat Herder but I am not sorry.

[Play Care]

My understanding is that it has been proven time and time again that this *value* only applies to "low income" kids.

IMHO, it really has nothing to do with income.... it comes with parental neglect that politicians like to gloss over as "low income".

Flame suit zipped.

**** I was as low income as humanly possible... my parents (young teens) wanted better for me so they walked me to the public library, taught me to write in sand with sticks, had me count birds/kids/dogs, talked with me, read to me, sent me to public schools, hovered over me to make me do my homework, drilled spelling words/test questions with me, made me go to after school tutoring, and took me to soup kitchens/shelters/rehab parking lots to let me see how hard life is for people who don't try to make life better.

All of that was free, btw.

I also have issue with paying low income families higher rates for having more kids. It is wrong. It is essentially paying them to have more kids they cannot support that falls to the rest of us. Simple math tells you it cannot work.

I just read an article about the growing number of low income white children (yes, race is important here and I'll get to why) in Great Britain who are going to school at 5 and are behaviorally more like young toddlers - including not being potty trained. Race is important because these are not foreign born, ESL kids. They have been evaluated and do NOT have disabilities other then the fact they have been so severely neglected. In some of the cases the children didnt even know their own name, because it had never been used I'm not sure why these kids are being left with their parents.
It saddens me that the government makes education compulsory so young, since it doesn't seem to be addressing the primary issue which is a parenting one. And the *majority* of children who would benefit from more time at home with parents are the ones losing out.

[Heidi]

I would much prefer that these "early education" dollars are spent on medical care, nutritious meals, and parent education. I would rather see our local parent resource center get that money than using it for teaching 2 or 3 year olds "preschool" work.

Putting a constantly sick, hungry, neglected child into a public school means they are not ready to learn. It's simply "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" right there. If someone's basic needs aren't met, you can shove all the information you want down their throats, and they won't retain it.

[Maria2013]

My understanding is that it has been proven time and time again that this *value* only applies to "low income" kids.

IMHO, it really has nothing to do with income.... it comes with parental neglect that politicians like to gloss over as "low income".

Flame suit zipped.

**** I was as low income as humanly possible... my parents (young teens) wanted better for me so they walked me to the public library, taught me to write in sand with sticks, had me count birds/kids/dogs, talked with me, read to me, sent me to public schools, hovered over me to make me do my homework, drilled spelling words/test questions with me, made me go to after school tutoring, and took me to soup kitchens/shelters/rehab parking lots to let me see how hard life is for people who don't try to make life better.

All of that was free, btw.

I also have issue with paying low income families higher rates for having more kids. It is wrong. It is essentially paying them to have more kids they cannot support that falls to the rest of us. Simple math tells you it cannot work.

yup

[originalkat]

happyface Well said Cat Herder

[Familycare71]

My understanding is that it has been proven time and time again that this *value* only applies to "low income" kids.

IMHO, it really has nothing to do with income.... it comes with parental neglect that politicians like to gloss over as "low income".

Flame suit zipped.

**** I was as low income as humanly possible... my parents (young teens) wanted better for me so they walked me to the public library, taught me to write in sand with sticks, had me count birds/kids/dogs, talked with me, read to me, sent me to public schools, hovered over me to make me do my homework, drilled spelling words/test questions with me, made me go to after school tutoring, and took me to soup kitchens/shelters/rehab parking lots to let me see how hard life is for people who don't try to make life better.

All of that was free, btw.

I also have issue with paying low income families higher rates for having more kids. It is wrong. It is essentially paying them to have more kids they cannot support that falls to the rest of us. Simple math tells you it cannot work.

THAT in my eyes is the American Dream!! Want better - work harder!!
I agree with the other posters as well

[Laurel]

I would much prefer that these "early education" dollars are spent on medical care, nutritious meals, and parent education. I would rather see our local parent resource center get that money than using it for teaching 2 or 3 year olds "preschool" work.

Putting a constantly sick, hungry, neglected child into a public school means they are not ready to learn. It's simply "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" right there. If someone's basic needs aren't met, you can shove all the information you want down their throats, and they won't retain it.

[nanglgrl]

I agree cat herder, don't most child care providers? Is there anyone that disagrees? I'm not trying to start trouble just wondering where the other side is coming from.

[Cat Herder]

I agree cat herder, don't most child care providers? Is there anyone that disagrees? I'm not trying to start trouble just wondering where the other side is coming from.

Check out the National Childcare Associations, various State Departments of Education, and National Department of Education webpages. The providers here who agree seem to be the vocal minority.....

[MarinaVanessa]

I also agree with Cat Herder but I am not sorry.

::::::