![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
madrobinsWhen we were looking for a preschool for Sarcasm Girl, way back in (gulp) 1993, we saw dozens of them--we were living on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where there were any number, many of them boasting bilingual education (French and English, Chinese and English, Japanese and English) or monolingual non-English education (French), and other specialized studies. There was at least one Montessori school where they more or less told us "your child hasn't a prayer of making it in to Harvard unless she starts out here." When I told the nice lady that I was more concerned that my girl learn some social skills and citizenship, play a lot, and be exposed to numbers and letters, she looked shocked. SG didn't get in to that school (which was fine, we'd already crossed it off our list, and we couldn't have afforded it anyway). SG wound up going to The Brownstone School, a wonderful, homey place where the kids sang about cleaning up and using their words, and love was the first tool among all the teachers. Both of the kids went to Brownstone, and when I was in New York two weeks ago I dropped in to say Hi; they still remember both Sarcasm Girl and her sister with fondness and amusement.
So today I'm reading the Chronicle and notice an article about a study on preschool that finds that there are indeed significant gains for kids--particularly poor kids--in terms of language and math skills. The study also finds that there are significant behavioral problems among kids, particularly kids from wealthy families, who go to preschool. Sounds sinister, no? Particularly at a time when there's a proposition on the ballot to establish universal voluntary preschool.
Well, of course, I have a theory.
The preschools we saw a dozen years ago that targetted the upper and upper middle class (sending our kids to any of them would have been a heavy financial stretch) tended to be academically focussed--not just working on academic readiness, but working on cramming the kids' heads full of data so that they would have a running start at being the best prepared student in kindergarten. The preschools we saw that worked with a range of kids from different economic strata (like Brownstone, which had wealthy families and families on ADC) tended to work on behavior first and academic stuff later, partly because there was such a range of child-rearing styles among the school families. There was a little boy in SG's class who had significant problems--he was a sweet little guy with a killer smile, but he had real impulse control problems: punch first, think it through later. Because he was at the school via ADC they could not just pitch him out: they had to work with him, they had to find him help and teach him skills to control his aggression. I think, by the time that kid went to kindergarten, he was ready to learn in the most important way: he could sit in a classroom and get along on the playground.
At the same time as I was watching this drama unfold, I began to read some stuff about high end preschools expelling kids who acted out. Their rationale, and I can't fault them for it, was that these children might pose a threat to the other kids. But I have to wonder if these children, being stuffed with data like tiny Strausbourg geese, were suffered to misbehave in small ways, either because the focus was so academic or because the parents had so much money that the teacher was intimidated, until their misbehavior became unbearable, at which point: out. And the kid goes to another high end preschool. Now, it has been a dozen years since I saw these schools, and I things might have changed. I don't want to imply that there wasn't love, caring, and excellent teaching at those high-end schools. But I do know that that when we were touring schools, I had the strong feeling that their priorities were not mine. I wanted my kids to have other kids to play with; I sent them to preschool--well, partly because I was working full time, and we needed the coverage, but largely because I wanted the socialization stuff.
I'd love to read the whole study, because there's so much I don't see in the article. I believe that preschool is a force for good, socially as well as academically. Or at least, that it can be.
So today I'm reading the Chronicle and notice an article about a study on preschool that finds that there are indeed significant gains for kids--particularly poor kids--in terms of language and math skills. The study also finds that there are significant behavioral problems among kids, particularly kids from wealthy families, who go to preschool. Sounds sinister, no? Particularly at a time when there's a proposition on the ballot to establish universal voluntary preschool.
Well, of course, I have a theory.
The preschools we saw a dozen years ago that targetted the upper and upper middle class (sending our kids to any of them would have been a heavy financial stretch) tended to be academically focussed--not just working on academic readiness, but working on cramming the kids' heads full of data so that they would have a running start at being the best prepared student in kindergarten. The preschools we saw that worked with a range of kids from different economic strata (like Brownstone, which had wealthy families and families on ADC) tended to work on behavior first and academic stuff later, partly because there was such a range of child-rearing styles among the school families. There was a little boy in SG's class who had significant problems--he was a sweet little guy with a killer smile, but he had real impulse control problems: punch first, think it through later. Because he was at the school via ADC they could not just pitch him out: they had to work with him, they had to find him help and teach him skills to control his aggression. I think, by the time that kid went to kindergarten, he was ready to learn in the most important way: he could sit in a classroom and get along on the playground.
At the same time as I was watching this drama unfold, I began to read some stuff about high end preschools expelling kids who acted out. Their rationale, and I can't fault them for it, was that these children might pose a threat to the other kids. But I have to wonder if these children, being stuffed with data like tiny Strausbourg geese, were suffered to misbehave in small ways, either because the focus was so academic or because the parents had so much money that the teacher was intimidated, until their misbehavior became unbearable, at which point: out. And the kid goes to another high end preschool. Now, it has been a dozen years since I saw these schools, and I things might have changed. I don't want to imply that there wasn't love, caring, and excellent teaching at those high-end schools. But I do know that that when we were touring schools, I had the strong feeling that their priorities were not mine. I wanted my kids to have other kids to play with; I sent them to preschool--well, partly because I was working full time, and we needed the coverage, but largely because I wanted the socialization stuff.
I'd love to read the whole study, because there's so much I don't see in the article. I believe that preschool is a force for good, socially as well as academically. Or at least, that it can be.