|
Comments:
Smed - 2006-07-26 11:40:23
We're really pushing for full day. However, the Montessori program offers half day and then they can take a bus to the kindergarten center here in town, so basically it's a full day. Katie will start that next year, but she really wants to go this year, she said.
-------------------------------
Harriet - 2006-07-26 11:51:49
AJ wanted to go this year too, but it wasn't an option. If we had done Montessori, we might have considered it. I'm for full day kindergarten in principal. It's the practice that is faulty. I'm beyond skeptical. I expect the worst. I'm not sure why that is, because other than my chaotic first few years of elementary school, I had a really good education experience, mostly in public schools.
-------------------------------
Claudia - 2006-07-26 12:03:30
Two things. Yes, play is now missing from kindergarten. Why? This "hurry up" mentality. It's SOL crap. And I think that's a big mistake (and a completely other rant). And, that's why preschool is important to me - you have all those play opportunities that are now missing in school. Also, "more time doesn't mean better" is absolutely right. If kids are getting what they need in a part-day program, great. And that part-time program works okay with the family's schedule, wonderful. But how do we define what's best for them, what they need? I don't have the answers but I think we need to keep asking the questions. And, I think we, as parents, need to make sure we're communicating our concerns to the teacher and the administration. Life is not perfect or fair. Sigh.
-------------------------------
rs536-2000 - 2006-07-26 12:48:04
That's a very disturbing article. I would bet that affluent public schools in the NYC system allow for play. It's only the ones that serve poor families that will have to eliniate it. That is very sad.
-------------------------------
Chris - 2006-07-26 13:03:34
I have two kids. Like Claudia, I believed that half-day kindergarten was a waste of time (N was in full-time preschool) and I signed her up for full day K. What a mistake! It was partly just that particular classroom -- it was strict, and the half day classes would be outside playing while poor N's class was inside learning about silent E. But I actually think the whole premise is wrong -- it is enough to have half a day of school, and then playtime. So much gets crammed down kids throats these days, and it's really not necessary. they learn so much on their own by themselves, and that stuff is at least as valuable as anything they learn in school. So we sent M to half day K with the option of aftercare (which was a great science/art class). It was a much better experience. They're only 5 or 6! I think you are right, harriet -- they learn a lot by playing.
-------------------------------
lemming - 2006-07-26 15:12:43
STAY ON TOP OF THINGS. I'd argue that this is one of the most important years of AJ's life and the time when you need to really watch how he learns, copes, etc. Some kids can handle being bounced up a few grades. Some can't. It's important to feed their souls and to recognize all of the differences.
-------------------------------
Kelley2 - 2006-07-26 23:24:10
And because you *will do whatever it takes to make that happen, AJ will flourish. If not in this kindergarten, in another one; if not this school, another one.
In our state, it's that damn No Child Left Behind Act that has taken the play out of kindergarten and the creative learning methods out of the other grades. It's all about test scores and not about what's best for the children.
-------------------------------
Claudia - 2006-07-27 08:42:30
:) Nah - I didn't think you'd hijacked my essay. I'm happy to see the subject create so much discussion. I was amused that all the comments ended up here.
-------------------------------
Harriet - 2006-07-27 10:52:08
So much good stuff here. Thanks to all who've gotten involved in the discussion. Yes, Kelley, NCLB is at the root of the current problem. I don't know a single teacher who thinks it's a good idea, however well-meaning it might be. It tries to oversimplify a very complex equation. But as Claudia has said, there is a difference between what works for one kid and what works for man and also between what is ideal and what is practical. I'm not sure we'll ever be happy with public schools because they are trying to do too many things at once. It's really a very poor business plan. The voucher issue, while trying to fix the problem to a degree really fractures it further, as many quick fixes do. It's a band-aid. I don't think we can afford a system overhaul, or even that there's enough of a system infrastructure to overhaul -- that's part of the problem. But we can work on our own schools one school at a time. And I think the urban move towards a magnet/charter school model seems to make some sense -- offering a variety of methods/foci but concentrated in individual schools. Although implementation is clearly hit and miss and we still have the problem of inconsistent access. But I don't think a one-size-fits-all educational method ever works. That's why arts education and play time and a mix of physical and mental activity (however stupid P.E. class might be) is important. On the other hand, trying to offer too many options doesn't seem to work either. It's a mess and a puzzle that is perhaps best dealt with one school at a time. If all parents had the time, energy, desire and resources to be advocates for their kids in their own schools, we'd be doing great. But that, again, is not practical. It makes me understand some of the homeschooling parents a little better -- sometimes it seems like less work.
-------------------------------
add your comment:
back to the entry - Diaryland
|