It's storage for children so that mummy can stare at a screen whilst drinking coffee.
I don't understand people who say kids "need" preschool.
- Thread starter Luna Novem
- Start date
My nephews were packed off to nursery at 6 months of age so their mother could go back to her BS job. I see loads of kids in the local school packed off to breakfast club/holiday club/after-school club etc.
Storage.
Storage.
They have Pre-K where we live that's included with public school. The children get on the bus with the rest of the kindergarten through grade 12 kids and have regular classrooms. My youngest was NOT staying home with me another year. He wanted to go wherever his brother went. I'm not even sure he had the object presence, or lack thereof, to realize that he and his brother were distinct individuals before they were separated by Pre-K.
Pre-school is a lot. Unless there is a Montessori school, I'm not really an advocate for Pre-K, but I had my kids back to back so they would have someone their age to interact with.
Pre-school is a lot. Unless there is a Montessori school, I'm not really an advocate for Pre-K, but I had my kids back to back so they would have someone their age to interact with.
Kids don't need schools.
The government needs schools.
The government needs schools.
Looks like pre-school is a product of feminism. Women put their kids on someone else's provision as they're out to work.
I don't like this extensive schooling and formal courses for children. I think children also needs a lot of activities in informal settings, so they can learn various life skills and wisdom that you can't get from classroom.
I also have a bit of skepticism towards formal schooling, as it seems to train you to be obedient to the system and to be a conforming member of the mass. So to put children on extensive formal schooling would stifle their creativity, intelligent, and individuality.
It's best for children to spend a lot of time with family in their early years too. Why keeping them away from the family early with pre-school?
I don't like this extensive schooling and formal courses for children. I think children also needs a lot of activities in informal settings, so they can learn various life skills and wisdom that you can't get from classroom.
I also have a bit of skepticism towards formal schooling, as it seems to train you to be obedient to the system and to be a conforming member of the mass. So to put children on extensive formal schooling would stifle their creativity, intelligent, and individuality.
It's best for children to spend a lot of time with family in their early years too. Why keeping them away from the family early with pre-school?
Our girls are 16 months apart (5 and 6 year olds now). My wife home schools them and she did a simple Pre K curriculum with them. It served as a dry run of sorts for her and them to prep for homeschooling. Looking back, we both agree the girls didn't really need it, as we had covered most of the stuff anyway through every-day play (basic shapes, colors, ABC's, numbers, etc.). To say a kid "needs" it outside the home is a farce, unless the parents do next to nothing at all with them.
My mom put my brother and I into preschool because she kept being told kids needed it. This was in the seventies. I can’t imagine how the pressure is now. We despised it, and she never sent us back and was mad at herself for listening to instead of trusting herself.
Wow, this sounds like me.
Wow, this sounds like me.
My sis in law put her third child in creche aged 8 months, because she was 'bored' and missed her job, head of sCiEnCe in a state high school.
I cant fathom that on any level.
I went to school aged 5, fail to see the point why. I think 7 is probably about right, but thats only to a sane school, none of which exist in West today it seems, not State schools at least.
Fair reminder that it’s not just moms but also dads allowing/sending their little ones to be tossed into the “crèche ‘oh well’”.
As for preschool, I think it depends... We ended up sending our second oldest daughter to preschool at the age of four because she was (is) just such a high energy and social person and she *loved* being at preschool. And we, also, sent our son to pre-K without any qualms. For reference though, our pre-school is tied into our church and some of the pre-school teachers were the parents of my childhood friends so I personally know they are good people.
As for preschool, I think it depends... We ended up sending our second oldest daughter to preschool at the age of four because she was (is) just such a high energy and social person and she *loved* being at preschool. And we, also, sent our son to pre-K without any qualms. For reference though, our pre-school is tied into our church and some of the pre-school teachers were the parents of my childhood friends so I personally know they are good people.
Extra help, education, etc.—probably.
But if that’s done correctly, “affirmative action” isn’t necessary.
What about Christian preschool, though?Everything is about God and religion. There is no such thing as neutrality. Either you are for Him or against Him, and all things are meant to be done for His glory. If you go against His way for teaching your children in favor of a way that is promoted by a wicked world, then so be it. I can only hope your eyes are opened to the truth. Your explanations may seem good to you, but they are not valid reasons to abandon your role to someone else.
Someone almost their age, anyway.
Even a year is a long time in developmental terms. Kids who are not literally twins should never be considered the “same” age—because they’re not.
For very young children, maybe.
But by late grade school, or certainly high school, it’s the rare parent who is equipped to teach all the various necessary subjects well. Homeschooling usually requires at least some materials prepared by professionals, and maybe consultation or homework help by remote. By the later grades or high school, this may mean signing up for what amounts to distance learning—almost like what the schools have been pushing for going on two years now. And that may be fine, if parents can pick a program that accords with their values.
But this notion that the typical couple—even between them—can themselves teach all subjects well, through high school?
Nope, nope, nope!
Most subjects taught in school (K-12) that parents are not equipped to teach, are not necessary for children to learn.
This is abundantly evidenced by the fact that most people, having been squeezed through that system, basically retain none of it to teach their own children.
No child should need preschool. But there are parents who don’t teach their children anything. So I guess for those poor kids maybe it’s a good thing? How hard is it to teach your kids abc’s, numbers and how to write their name before kindergarten. Not hard at all.
Our benevolent leaders have spent generations engineering the specific set of circumstances under which children may be argued to be "better off" in the care and tutelage of the government than that of their parents.
But the argument boils down to this:
"Schools have produced a generation of adults too incompetent to teach their children at home, therefor these children would be better off at school, also learning to be too incompetent to teach their own children."
lol no
(see also: "the vaccine doesn't work so everyone has to take it")
But the argument boils down to this:
"Schools have produced a generation of adults too incompetent to teach their children at home, therefor these children would be better off at school, also learning to be too incompetent to teach their own children."
lol no
(see also: "the vaccine doesn't work so everyone has to take it")
When I was growing up, school started at age 5 or 6 with Kindergarten, which was for half a day and was basically just to get used to going to school. Very little learning was expected. Learning alphabets, numbers, basic reading, etc., started in 1st grade. Reading with any fluency was not expected until 2nd grade, and "real school" started at 3rd grade. I never had preschool or that sort of thing in that era and did well enough in high school to get a full ride scholarship, graduate from engineering college, etc.
Maybe where the idea of pre-school has some validity was with the first head-start program, which was to teach Spanish-speaking children the rudiments of English before kindergarten. Actually knowing a bit of the language that school is to be taught in is a good idea, and children that age readily pick up language. But to extend the positive result of that original program in that specific circumstance to any and all pre-kindergarten education is a non sequitur.
Besides children in general being traumatized by being away from their mother every day and placed in the care of strangers, it has an especially bad effect on boys. Girls are much more suited at traditional schooling at that early age. Left to their own devices, girls may even play school at home. Boys just want to run around and be active. Academically, boys catch up later, and, historically, pulled ahead later still on average. But not likely to do either if they are conditioned to believe they will always be behind. Today, men only make up 40% of college students. Single women complain they can not find a man of any "value"--simple math says that 1/3rd of college women can never settle down with a college man. Could be because men have been taught that school is hopeless and they will always be behind since they were 3 or 4 years old, when education is fairly pointless. I have seen 3 year olds learn counting and 4 year olds lean basic math, and then do poorly at math in elementary school. And children who could not count until 1st grade go on to differential equations. Academic instruction at such an early age does not matter. But preschool does demoralize boys. Unintended consequences, or is that the whole point?
Maybe where the idea of pre-school has some validity was with the first head-start program, which was to teach Spanish-speaking children the rudiments of English before kindergarten. Actually knowing a bit of the language that school is to be taught in is a good idea, and children that age readily pick up language. But to extend the positive result of that original program in that specific circumstance to any and all pre-kindergarten education is a non sequitur.
Besides children in general being traumatized by being away from their mother every day and placed in the care of strangers, it has an especially bad effect on boys. Girls are much more suited at traditional schooling at that early age. Left to their own devices, girls may even play school at home. Boys just want to run around and be active. Academically, boys catch up later, and, historically, pulled ahead later still on average. But not likely to do either if they are conditioned to believe they will always be behind. Today, men only make up 40% of college students. Single women complain they can not find a man of any "value"--simple math says that 1/3rd of college women can never settle down with a college man. Could be because men have been taught that school is hopeless and they will always be behind since they were 3 or 4 years old, when education is fairly pointless. I have seen 3 year olds learn counting and 4 year olds lean basic math, and then do poorly at math in elementary school. And children who could not count until 1st grade go on to differential equations. Academic instruction at such an early age does not matter. But preschool does demoralize boys. Unintended consequences, or is that the whole point?
I was put in head start when I turned 3 and started preschool at age 4. It was during those two years that my parents were going through a divorce and although I had never really thought about it until I read this thread, perhaps starting school apparently earlier than one should along with the divorce had a bigger impact than I thought.
Truth is, I was never really great at academics, never did sports.. From the start all the way until 12th grade. Some of it was because I wasn’t putting in the full effort (until 12th grade) but most of it was because I didn’t see how any or most of the stuff I was learning was going to be of use. I only liked grade school at times because I got to interact with other people but I had always had social problems until I was 17-18 (12th grade) and started “getting things” and knew how to be cool, meaning not make others look bad while also being myself.
By that point though, i was sort of a joke and I was more focused on just getting out of high school. People there either already liked me or they didn’t, there was hardly any in between. For most of grade school, I didn’t have very many friends and I feel like because of how I started schooling to begin with, combined with being in “special classes” that I didn’t really need until I was around 9 or 10, sort of set me up for a rough ride.
So even though I got an “early start” on education, it seemed like I was a very late bloomer in pretty much every aspect and had to learn a lot of things the hard way, usually too late and of course my development suffered too along the way but I still think I turned out alright, despite everything.
I kind of wonder if I would get diagnosed as autistic these days. I was another one of those kids who would read through encyclopedias, memorize calendars, had extremely niche interests.
I only went to kindergarten for half-days and I did very "well" to the point where the teacher gave me errands to run or other things to do because I would burn through activities too quickly, haha.
I don't struggle socially, I like social interactions but don't like stupid or meaningless ones (not autistic, just a Slav).
I only went to kindergarten for half-days and I did very "well" to the point where the teacher gave me errands to run or other things to do because I would burn through activities too quickly, haha.
I don't struggle socially, I like social interactions but don't like stupid or meaningless ones (not autistic, just a Slav).
They’d try to diagnose you as such. They tried the same with me in the late 90s. What’s a half day to you? A full day of kindergarten for me was 8 to 3, to my best memory.