Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Pretty good question. For society's sake, I'd say the full day Pre-K would be in everyone's best interest.
Not everyone chooses a career path that requires anything beyond a high school education. Could they get something out of the experience anyway? Probably. Will they though? Probably not. They'll just get drunk and skip class. NTTAWWT
There is if the public is paying for it. Lots of community colleges have vocational ed. where people can work towards in things like culinary arts, hvac, etc. There are also even post secondary vocational options for kids that couldn't be successful in a community college program. The kids can learn basic building maintenance, custodial arts, basic office work, basic food service, etc.
how dysfunctional are we talking? not sure there's too much hope for a lot of those kids that grow up in a household that's off the rails.
It is definitely most impactful for kids that come from low SES (which is about 51% of the students in this country).
Asking the government to keep it as simple as possible increases the chances of them not ####### it up. They probably will anyway, but a free year of pre k seems rather fool proof. No way they get post high school education right if their objective is to create a catch-all. If they're going to do it then they need to follow whatever model Rhode Island is looking into. It's simple. They can't #### it up. Right? Oh, who am I kidding...
I don't think I agree. The earlier you invest, the more you get in return. Most kids that are behind academically in HS entered MS that way and entered elementary that way. They start behind from day 1 in school and the gap just grows and grows each year. They need help as soon as possible. Also, kids are pretty solid from 8-12. Those are great years. They mostly haven't hit puberty so they are still kids who want to impress their teacher and parents, aren't flooded with hormones and are mature enough to have some adult like conversations. 12-15 is where #### goes off the rails a bit.
I'll take your word and experience. My thought is that it goes off the rails between 12-15 because of the things they go through at 8-12, when they learn what the world is all about. I don't have much more to add than that, just my opinion.
I don't think the amount of dysfunction matters per se. You'll get the whole spectrum ever way, so you're trying to catch the ones that are catchable by giving them the best opportunity to succeed.
You aren't totally wrong. I just think we need to go even earlier. For example, most anti-drug education (DARE and that kind of thing) are put in place when kids are like 11-13. These programs don't work well and one of the reasons is that by the time kids are 11-13, their attitudes and perceptions of drugs are already well shaped. This was part of my research project in college. I proposed drug education would have more effect if it was implemented at a very young age and then with smaller reinforcement sessions in middle school and high school.
There are definitely studies linking pre-K amongst disadvantaged kids with better life outcomes like lower incarceration rates.
That's true.
Yeah this is important. Really, kids from a strong family with money are largely going to be fine (isn't the best predictor of a kid's performance in school their parents' income?). The goal, imo, as we dump money into educating the public is help to prevent kids that come from uneducated, unskilled idiots that are a drain on society from also turning into uneducated, unskilled idiots that are a drain on society. An incredibly difficult task, but if we are throwing money at something, we need to throw money at that.
I'm thinking Gary Busey would play the undercover cop turned teacher in Pre-Kindegaten Cop as a prequel to Kindergarten Cop.
I'm not sure what you're proposing. That the government pay people a full salary to stay home with their kids?
I think what is being proposed that the government guarantee a 4 yr college education to the child of parents if one parent stays home. This is obviously unworkable since it excludes single parents and other situations where it is not economically feasible.
If it is structured and a learning environment to be a foundation of future school and not just naps and baby sitting the Pre-K is my answer.
Agree with you guys. 85% of brain's impressionable development is complete by age 3 or 4. It's an incredibly important time to be paying attention to.
