As I read these I kept thinking that these really are not about educating children. It is about enforcing their political agenda. Because if it was about the kids. Then they would do some hard line things that would make people upset. But would be the best for the kids. Like increasing accessibility to extra curricular activities for HS kids ( because it would be best for the HS kids right?) Make it easier for kids to get into better schooling, because we all know that there are bad schools and good schools ( vouchers?) I just don't see the really heart of the matter anything more then politics.
Federal, state, and, as appropriate, local governments should provide funds sufficient to make pre-kindergarten available for all three- and four-year-old children. Some three and even four year old children are still in diapers!!!! Who in their right mind thinks this is a great idea?
I think the "in their right mind" part is dead-on. But, sadly, there are quite a few crazy people in important positions in this world. Our local news broke a story just two or three days ago about the city trying to reopen the issue of full time pre-k in public schools. They tried a few years ago, but parents flipped out (wooohooo, right?). We'll see how it goes this time. Now they are playing it as, "it won't be mandatory, but it will be free childcare for those who work." Uh huh. Like all the rest of school used to not be mandatory.
Moreover, it isn't free childcare. Someone has to pay for it, and it won't be the dead-beat parents who don't work but can't wait to throw their child in someone else's care for an entire day. At one time, our school had "grants" that covered a before-school program and an after-school program so a parent with a 3yo and up could essentially be away from their kids from 6am to 6pm daily. :roll: So glad I contributed to that program with my tax dollars.
see...that is what groups like the NEA are counting on. So many parents have put themselves in the financial position to NEED two incomes, so they are eager to have free childcare. They don't realize that it comes with a price tag...having your child indoctrinated at ever younger ages. (I am not slamming 2 income families....please don't misread me there. But many families put the $$$ before what might be best for their kids and hang the consequences. Those are the families to which I am referring.)
When our kids were young, like Bo was almost 2 and paddy wasn't even a year, we had them go to someone's home for daycare. DH worked and I was looking for a job, and eventually ended up finding one and working at it. They were only there for 2 months, but by that time they had learned to bite, hit, kick, and they caught Scabes to boot (in which the childcare worker lied about the situation with another child who had it that gave it to our kids...long story, but I knw she was lying) It was then that we vehemently agreed NEVER to send our kids to any kind of daycare again, and we haven't. It's the same as sending them to a public system when their that young. Within a few months they will catch on to habits/ideas that you don't deem sppropriate. Believe me, it took forever for us to work that behavior out of our kids, especially the oldest. Same will happen with the public school as well.
Well, my state already has full time k and full time pre-k... paid for by the state. I mean it is not like they can be learning much b/c everyone tells me in pre-k they are required to take naps! Take NAPS! It is supposed to be school...but it is really daycare to me. Most people send their kids to it too...b/c it's free. In fact around here 2 is the average age to start preschool for the SAHM families and of course working parents have their babies in daycare from the start. It is sad.. we run out of friends to play with at 2 here!
When I subbed in the preschool hearing impaired class, they would take a nap right after lunch. I'm trying to remember how long it lasted. I THINK the kids that were awake an hour later were taken out, and those still asleep were left to sleep (with an aide in the room watching) until they woke or it was time for the buses. The teachers had a rotating Nap Room Duty. Whenever I subbed, I volunteered to take the duty, because I knew the teachers' had plenty they could accomplish during that time. So I'd bring a book and read and let them get some "real work" done.
On the subject of naps: Our district has all-day K. There is no half-day option. I overheard several moms at AWANS the other night complaining that their Kindergartners were going without naps for the first time ever and their behavior was REALLY suffering. One mom said that, two weeks into the school year, her daughter was falling asleep at the dinner table every single night. That speaks volumes to me. So many kids are still in need of a nap at 5 or 6 years old. To suddenly thrust them into an environment where their body is not able to maintain itself properly is just not a good idea.
FYI, I did not sound clear before but I meant that IF kids are still in need of naps (which they are at this age) then they should NOT be in school all day. I don't think the goverment should pay for that.
I know that when I subbed regular all-day K, the kids did llie down for about a half-hour. Most teachers, if a child fell asleep, they would let him sleep. And usually it was the same ones that fell asleep every day. But in today's age of must-be-ready-for-the-test, the ones that sleep might be the ones falling "behind".
