Long hrs in preschool/daycare harmful

Avatar for myshkamouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Long hrs in preschool/daycare harmful
2470
Sun, 03-19-2006 - 3:09pm

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051101/news_1n1earlyed.html

Very interesting. Particularly the difference in the middle to upper income kids vs low income.

"I personally feel children need the nurture of their parents and the home," she said. "Those early years, that's when they are bonding to their family. That nurturing, only the family can give that."

I tend to agree.

MM, WOHM to B&E, 7.24.03

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2003
Wed, 04-19-2006 - 9:01am

Well, this

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2006
Wed, 04-19-2006 - 9:03am

exactly sabina.

pka and many other private school families should consider themselves privleged with the choice to private educate their children..there are no, if very little (i can think of one private academy designed for the special needs child here) alternatives for the sped child outside an iep....and even with that, the ultimate goal is a standard for all.

if that *standard* bar was somehow raised to accomodate a gt child,the disabled child would never ever be able to reach it.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Wed, 04-19-2006 - 9:36am
In the USA, most kids with "alternative learning styles" are underserved, and it's common for there to be nothing at all within public education for GT kids. But by and large, GT kids are in a much better position than special needs kids to benefit from resources outside the public system. Of course GT kids are often ignored in public education. But since there are far fewer of them, their needs aren't likely to be addressed until special education gets substantially upgraded.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Wed, 04-19-2006 - 10:22am

The answer is, I dunno. My husband is an academic as well, but more in the math and science area. He's actually a historian of mathematics and science and specializes in ancient and medieval mathematics and optics. I don't think there is any question that a kid who is exposed to complex language and music early on probably has some kind of testing advantage. On the other hand, if the kid doesn't have some pretty good grey matter to start with, although the tutoring and intensive therapy is probably going to help him reach his potential, it's not going to create a genius if there isn't the potential for genius in the kid already. My older kid, the same one with above average verbal skills, has received piano lessons since first grade, used to work pretty hard at developing his skill, and he's a decent piano player who is actually beginning to sound pretty good, but he's not "gifted" musically. There are kids with true talent/musical gifts who've had a year or two of lessons and can play better than he ever will.

Short answer is, a kid needs a lot of help to realize his or her true potential in any area. A "gifted" kid whose talents aren't nourished and challenged will likely never develop to his or her true potential. That goes for average kids and for below average kids, too. It's not likely that any of them will reach their true potential without a good education and a lot of adult nurturing.

I don't like labels unless they help out with the process of getting the kid what he or she needs to succeed. My kid is one of those funny ones. Some years in the budget cuts, the cut off for providing gifted educational services is an IQ of 130. Other years, it's 140. I think his true I.Q. falls between those two numbers, so some years he's gifted and some years he isn't. It's not like we're going to leave it to the school system to decide to nurture his talents one year and neglect them on other years. We're lucky to have the means, motive, and opportunity to provide a lot of supplemental help and enrichment services on our own and not have to worry about what the school system is going to do on any particular year.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-03-2005
Wed, 04-19-2006 - 10:39am
I'm curious. Do you think IQ alone can or should be used as a determinant of giftedness?
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Wed, 04-19-2006 - 10:44am
I think every child, no matter whether the kid is dumber than a stump, average, or genius, ought to be given the opportunity for an education that will allow that child to reach his or her true potential.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-03-2005
Wed, 04-19-2006 - 10:50am
Ok. I agree with that wholeheartedly. But how is that an answer to my question? I'm genuinely curious as to your thoughts (as well as sabina's and others with experience in the area) on IQ as a determinant of giftedness.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Wed, 04-19-2006 - 10:52am
Aren't you in the Houston area? I know of five private schools in the area that have programs for kids with various learning disabilities, including one (The Parish School) that actually specializes in gifted LD kids.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Wed, 04-19-2006 - 10:55am
The answer is, I don't think that "gifted" is a particularly useful label unless it does help an individual child to get the special attention he or she might require to thrive. But I find it offensive that we need labels at all to get children help to thrive. It should be a given.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Wed, 04-19-2006 - 10:58am
No way.

Pages