From LifeSite.net:
A six year comparison of almost 35,000 children has shown that there has been no change in developmental levels of pupils entering primary school in this period, despite the introduction of several new early years' initiatives over the past decade, new research from Durham University's Curriculum, Evaluation and Management (CEM) Centre reveals.
The article also cites research finding that daycare adversely affects the brain chemisry of small children, early education initiatives lead to aggression, and other developmental problems.
A loving mother and father just can't be replaced.
4 comments:
First of all - let me say that, while I almost never agree with anything you say, I like the way you approach your arguments and the open dialog you encourage by allowing comments on your site.
OK. Now to the arguments. Unfortunately, Mr. Ellis, the research you site can easily be refuted.
When it comes to most key public policy issues, there are partisan "think tanks" that will produce "research" that says about anything that you want it to.
Personally, I try to vet the research I use - no matter what the issue. I wish you took the same approach, because studies like this - or the ones that Cindy Flakoll (spelling) used in her commentary last year - are pure... garbage.
I don't think the government should require Pre-K. It shouldn't be mandatory. But, the programs should be available, because they have helped ALOT of chilren.
I wonder - are you opposed to voluntary pre-school programs? Do you draw a distinction between pre-school and child care?
Thanks for the compliment, Anonymous.
You're right that various think tanks often come up with conflicting studies. Each one has to be evaluated based on it's merits and it's blind spots.
I understand that you disagree with the conclusions of these studies, but they're far from "pure garbage." Where do you believe they go astray? Where do you believe the research is faulty?
If you observe children who spend most of the time in daycare/preschool versus those who have one or both parents at home with them, in almost every case the child who stays with the parent(s) is better behaved, better developed and more mature. There are those cases where the parent(s) is a lazy slug who doesn't care if the kid goes and plays in the road all day, but those are more the exception than the rule. Whereas daycare/preschool kids spend all day with someone PAID to look after them, and around the bad behaviors of a multitude of other children.
I agree with you that pre-k shouldn't be required. I also don't believe they should be taxpayer funded, because of the research and observations I've already mentioned (both from a lack of benefit and a standpoint of behavioral problems).
I acknowledge that there is some distinction between preschool and daycare, but I don't believe it's a huge one...and again, the lack of gains from preschool programs bears that out.
I can tell you that when I was a kid, I didn't go to preschool/headstart/kindergarten; lived too far out in the country. But the bus would come and get me when I started first grade. I started first grade reading, counting, and doing some basic adding and subtracting. The other kids who went to headstart/kindergarten? Clueless. They were taught how to play, how to get their colors right, and how to take a nap. And given that the quality and performance of our public school system has gone downhill a lot since then, I doubt kids are getting any more from pre-k than they are from a daycare somewhere.
First, the question about research studies.
I think most of the studies go wrong right from the start - with the design of the study. It's unfortunate that educators and policymakers can't come together to find non-partisan analysis that sticks.
Lacking a beacon of research findings, it paves the way for people to argue through anecdotes - like what you've done with your experiences of pre-k programs.
I don't like it when people argue anecdotally against homeschooling, either. When people say that homeschools students aren't socially adjusted and have a hard time assimilating to the world, I tell them that those assumptions are based on their limited experience, and not on the community of homeschoolers that take their role to educate their children very seriously.
I'll admit, if your gauge of preschool is based on definitions when you were a kid, then you likely don't think they are very effective.
What I don't think you account for is the idea that early childhood education has grown tremendously since you may remember it. The issue is a relatively new area for public schools, and some of the time and resources devoted to pre-K have been spent figuring out what works best.
And that will always continue, because there needs to be multiple approaches, because there will always be kids that learn differently and at different rates. We're not manufacturing cars with raw materials, we're molding minds attached to an individual, and one-size-fits all approaches are never going to be successful.
There is a significant amount of evidence that suggests pre-K programs are beneficial - particularly for students in lower social classes. Academically, they come better prepared.
There's also a wealth of evidence that they are efficient - by reducing costs for special education, healthcare, and juvinille adjudication.
People like the U.S. Federal Reserve bank have professed strongly to the long-term economic benefits of pre-K.
I would contend that there's a world of difference between a high quality pre-school and a day care. Pre-schools are focused on learning - on preparing students to succeed from the start.
But, like I said, it should be up to the parents whether kids go to a daycare or a pre-school.
As for goverment funding - I think not providing a system for disadvantaged students to benefit from the added instruction makes it more difficult to close achievement gaps later in the school years. These gaps persist, on some level, because kids don't come in with the same basic skills.
You make some reasoned arguments, Anonymous. In the end, however, I don't find them persuasive enough to lead me to support pre-education, especially taxpayer funded programs.
The headstart/kindergarten program has been around for decades, yet today's young people are undeniably less prepared for adult life (i.e. good job skills, mastery of the basics such as reading and math, and raising a family and being a responsible citizen) than they were 50 years ago. Granted there are a lot of factors affecting that digression, but if more education--even early education--was the answer, you'd think headstart/kindergarten would be paying off...but they aren't.
In fact, I think they, along with some other factors, are part of the problem. As I've said before, you can never, ever pay someone to raise, care for and develop your child as well as you can; it's just not in the nature of the beast. So by taking children out of the home earlier and earlier, we are removing them farther and farther from their best developmental resources...which is why I tend to believe the kind of research cited in this post.
Yes, there will always be those exceptions where children are born to homes where the family dog gets better consideration, but those are the exceptions, not the rule, and we shouldn't build a system based on the exceptions. After all, when you start making (free) programs available to one segment, then the other segments see advantages to that (free "day care" being one of them) and soon we're enabling a free ride for many people who could and should be doing for themselves.
I think the best place in the world for children is in the home with their parents--it's why my wife and I homeschool. Obviously there are some things you can't and shouldn't legislate, and this area is one of them. But while you can't and shouldn't legislate that parents spend more time with their children and take a more active role in their education and development, at the same time you shouldn't make it easier (especially with taxpayer dollars) for them to ignore or minimize their responsibilities, and what's best for their children. If they're dead-set on on putting themselves first and their children second or third or wherever, they can do it on their own time and their own dime, but our society and our taxpayers shouldn't make it easier for them to do so--especially when the benefit is disputable at best.
That's what it ultimately comes down to for me.
Post a Comment