Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday June 06 2017, @03:05PM   Printer-friendly
from the or-send-'em-down-the-mines dept.

The New York Times reports:

As school reformers nationwide push to expand publicly funded prekindergarten and enact more stringent standards, more students are being exposed at ever younger ages to formal math and phonics lessons [...]. That has worried some education experts and frightened those parents who believe that children of that age should be playing with blocks, not sitting still as a teacher explains a shape's geometric characteristics.

But now a new national study suggests that preschools that do not mix enough fiber into their curriculum may be doing their young charges a disservice.

The study found that by the end of kindergarten, children who had attended one year of "academic-oriented preschool" outperformed peers who had attended less academic-focused preschools by, on average, the equivalent of two and a half months of learning in literacy and math.

"Simply dressing up like a firefighter or building an exquisite Lego edifice may not be enough," said Bruce Fuller, the lead author of the study, conducted by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley. "If you can combine creative play with rich language, formal conversations and math concepts, that's more likely to yield the cognitive gains we observed."

U.S. News published a related piece recently arguing for more attention to preschool curricula and specific content, in addition to other measures of preschool programs. In contrast, a story in the Atlantic last year pointed out new "academic" approaches to preschool may actually be doing more harm than good. And any immediate gains (as cited in the new study) frequently turn out to be temporary. One oft-cited alternative is Finland's approach, which delays formal schooling until age 7, after a year of relatively unstructured government-mandated kindergarten.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:03PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:03PM (#521872) Journal
    I'm unclear on why 2.5 months is supposed to be worthwhile, particularly since students are then usually channeled into the public school systems (which are commonly notorious for wasting years of students' life and removing such educational advantages). It sounds like one of those paperclip optimization [lesswrong.com] schemes where one trait or parameter is optimized to the exclusion of all else.

    But let's suppose we do that. Then we have moderately more educated people by the time they hit 7 years. And then what? People live a lot longer than 7 years. I don't buy that a little improvement in the beginning will still matter when they're 40 years old, much less 80 years old. At some point, we need to realize that education is not just some rat race that we rush kids through, but a life-long process that isn't necessarily helped by faster progress as kids. I think this will be particularly obvious when humanity longevity starts to increase substantially. For example, when people live 200 years or 1,000 years old, it won't make sense to spend so much time and resources optimizing their first seven years of existence.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2