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: 03-28-2003
Fri, 04-21-2006 - 10:56am

Yes, that's a tricky question.

There was a think tank project a while back that lined up some prominent economists to determine how to spend limited resources to improve life and solve problems for humans on earth. (The Copenhagen Consensus, I think it was called.) The question was where would the biggest impact occur to improve life for the most amount of people, for the buck. It was fascinating to see which areas they thought were cost effective and which areas weren't. Of course, the people making the determinations were economists so they had their own (probably conservative) biases of what was a good bang for the buck and what wasn't. I remember being surprised that one of their top concerns was to eliminate malaria. I don't suppose I was sitting around worrying about the impact of malaria on the world's people before then. (Malaria doesn't get a lot of press, you know.)

I don't know how you evaluate which is more important to society. To make sure all people have at least basic skills to function does seem pretty important. But to ignore the potential of the people who could contribute greatly to our lives (through science, technology, arts and so forth) and solve the world's future problems does seems a bit shortsighted.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-21-2006 - 10:56am
All adults can't read medical treatises or hornbooks.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Fri, 04-21-2006 - 10:59am

FWIW, I don't find what you do to be mocking that you celebrate Christmas.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-21-2006 - 11:03am
So do you think the most intelligent 1 or 2% of the population, if educated to their full potential, would be establishment and inside the box enough to contribute their potential to the world's advantage, or just to their own?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Fri, 04-21-2006 - 11:25am
You mean "not all adults can read medical treatises." Because if all adults can't read them, she's right!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Fri, 04-21-2006 - 11:25am

Let me clarify that the example with the three year old is not my experience. No one in real life has ever had the nerve to tell me the whole "everything levels out in third grade" thing. (Unless it happened and I've blocked it out as I tend to do with painful episodes!) I have friends to whom it has happened and I have heard the same sentiment all over the place in cyberspace, from this board to teachers' forums to the blogosphere.

I have encountered some resistance with educators. But I've also found educators who went out of their way to make things work for my kids. I've had a teacher who desperately wanted to accomodate my child and seemed to know how to go about it but had her hands tied by the administration and the diverse demands of a large class. I've had a teacher who was so flexible and understanding, she gave my child ample opportunity to learn new things. You need to know that when I post here, I get indignant on behalf of many, many children who are not getting appropriate educations, not just my children. There have to be kids out there who are similar to mine who don't have a parent advocating for them. I'm concerned for those children as well.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Fri, 04-21-2006 - 11:27am
Do you really think that it's "inside the box" people who end up contributing most to the world's population? Because when I think of the people whose contributions to society I have admired most, they are DEFINITELY outside-the-box kinds of people.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Fri, 04-21-2006 - 11:30am

It might be rare but it does occur. Ds taught himself to read when he was 4. We discovered that he could read because one day he started reading a German cookbook (of all things!) out loud. Yes, we read to him every night but I was (and am) lazy enough to never even bother with following the text with my finger or sounding out words or all of those other things people recommend. We never did flash cards or expect him to even know the alphabet (he learned that much earlier on his own). Some time in the next 6 months or so, he taught himself how to read English and then figured out Swedish on his own when he was more fluent in that language (when he was about 6). I'm not exactly sure when he worked out English and Swedish because there was no slow phase, if you know what I mean, it just seemed like he woke up one day and "got it". I do know that he was demanding to read the Harry Potter books in English by the time he was 5 and was apparently (according to the teacher) perfectly able to read Swedish in kindergarten (age 6).

I have no clue how significant that is or what it says about his future. For all I know, it could be genetic: I taught myself to read when I was about 3. My parents found out I could read when I started reading a newspaper out loud.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Fri, 04-21-2006 - 11:38am

Wow, I have no idea. I'd have to think about that.

Do you think a person NEEDS to be establishment and inside the box in order to contribute to the world?

Because I wasn't thinking that at all. I see a lot of highly intelligent people who have contributed to the world but haven't necessarily done it the "established" way.

Of course, the people with the very highest of intelligence don't always contribute to society but perhaps that is because they weren't allowed an appropriate education? It is documented that there is an optimal range of intelligence that provides the person with the best chance of being "successful" in our version of "establishment" and that that range does not include those at the very high end of the intelligence curve.

You wouldn't be saying that it just isn't worth it to attempt to educate the top 1 or 2% because they are just going to turn into odd-ball anti-social wierdos living in shanties in deep woods Idaho planning on how to bomb the Pentagon, would you?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 04-21-2006 - 11:40am
Can't they? I don't know, maybe not. I would think that most could if they felt like it.

Pages