Is It Time To Rethink Our Approach To Preschool And Kindergarten?

An article in Psychology Today questions the academic gains of early academic education and also raises the possibility of long term emotional harm.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201505/early-academic-training-produces-long-term-harm

(I hope the blockquote function still works on the new forum)

Many preschool and kindergarten teachers have told me that they are extremely upset—some to the point of being ready to resign—by the increased pressure on them to teach academic skills to little children and regularly test them on such skills.  They can see firsthand the unhappiness generated, and they suspect that the children would be learning much more useful lessons through playing, exploring, and socializing, as they did in traditional nursery schools and kindergartens.  Their suspicions are well validated by research studies.

A number of well-controlled studies have compared the effects of academically oriented early education classrooms with those of play-based classrooms (some of which are reviewed here(link is external), in an article by Nancy Carlsson-Paige, Geralyn McLaughlin,and Joan Almon).[1]  The results are quite consistent from study to study:  Early academic training somewhat increases children’s immediate scores on the specific tests that the training is aimed at (no surprise), but these initial gains wash out within 1 to 3 years and, at least in some studies, are eventually reversed.  Perhaps more tragic than the lack of long-term academic advantage of early academic instruction is evidence that such instruction can produce long-term harm, especially in the realms of social and emotional development.

A Study in Germany that Changed Educational Policy There

For example, in the 1970s, the German government sponsored a large-scale comparison in which the graduates of 50 play-based kindergartens were compared, over time, with the graduates of 50 academic direct-instruction-based kindergartens.[2]  Despite the initial academic gains of direct instruction, by grade four the children from the direct-instruction kindergartens performed significantly worse than those from the play-based kindergartens on every measure that was used.  In particular, they were less advanced in reading and mathematics and less well adjusted socially and emotionally. At the time of the study, Germany was gradually making a switch from traditional play-based kindergartens to academic ones.  At least partly as a result of the study, Germany reversed that trend; they went back to play-based kindergartens.  Apparently, German educational authorities, at least at that time, unlike American authorities today, actually paid attention to educational research and used it to inform educational practice.

A Large-Scale Study of Children from Poverty in the United States

Similar studies in the United States have produced comparable results.  One study, directed by Rebecca Marcon, focused on mostly African American children from high-poverty families.[3]  As expected, she found—in her sample of 343 students--that those who attended preschools centered on academic training showed initial academic advantages over those who attended play-based preschools; but, by the end of fourth grade, these initial advantages were reversed:  The children from the play-based preschools were now performing better, getting significantly higher school grades, than were those from the academic preschools, This study included no assessment of social and emotional development.

An Experiment in Which Chidren from Poverty Were Followed up to Age 23

In a well-controlled experiment, begun by David Weikart and his colleagues in 1967, sixty eight high-poverty children living in Ypsilanti, Michigan, were assigned to one of three types of nursery schools:  Traditional (play-based), High/Scope (which was like the traditional but involved more adult guidance), and Direct Instruction (where the focus was on teaching reading, writing, and math, using worksheets and tests). The assignment was done in a semi-random way, designed to ensure that the three groups were initially matched on all available measures.  In addition to the daily preschool experiences, the experiment also included a home visit every two weeks, aimed at instructing parents in how to help their children.  These visits focused on the same sorts of methods as did the preschool classrooms.  Thus, home visits from the Traditional classrooms focused on the value of play and socialization while those from the Direct-Instruction classrooms focused on academic skills, worksheets, and the like. 

The initial results of this experiment were similar to those of other such studies.  Those in the direct-instruction group showed early academic gains, which soon vanished.  This study, however, also included follow-up research when the participants were 15 years old and again when they were 23 years old.  At these ages there were no significant differences among the groups in academic achievement, but large, highly significant differences in social and emotional characteristics.

By age 15 those in the Direct Instruction group had committed, on average, more than twice as many “acts of misconduct” than had those in the other two groups.  At age 23, as young adults, the differences were even more dramatic.  Those in the Direct Instruction group had more instances of friction with other people, were more likely to have shown evidence of emotional impairment, were less likely to be married and living with their spouse, and were far more likely to have committed a crime than were those in the other two groups.  In fact, by age 23, 39% of those in the Direct Instruction group had felony arrest records compared to an average of 13.5% in the other two groups; and 19% of the Direct Instruction group had been cited for assault with a dangerous weapon compared with 0% in the other two groups.[4]

What might account for such dramatic long-term effects of type of preschool attended?  One possibility is that the initial school experience sets the stage for later behavior.  Those in classrooms where they learned to plan their own activities, to play with others, and to negotiate differences may have developed lifelong patterns of personal responsibility and pro-social behavior that served them well throughout their childhood and early adulthood.  Those in classrooms that emphasized academic performance may have developed lifelong patterns aimed at achievement, and getting ahead, which—especially in the context of poverty—could lead to friction with others and even to crime (as a misguided means of getting ahead).

I suspect that the biweekly home visits played a meaningful role.  The parents of those in the classrooms that focused on play, socialization, and student initiative may have developed parenting styles that continued to reinforce those values and skills as the children were growing up, and the parents of those in the academic training group may have developed parenting styles more focused on personal achievement (narrowly defined) and self-centered values—values that did not bode well for real-world success.

Teachers who were veterans in early childhood saw and knew what would happen..especially with the all day Kindergarten here ..which had no training or wisdom connected to the change from half day to full day ....very little thought went into training teachers in the use of the entire day as a learning venue and simply added more academics ..little regard was paid to the sleep patterns/ needs  of 5 year olds or their physical needs .

The administration simply forged the change to full day ..the consequences are fully visible .

In the last decade it has gotten worse with more pressure on academics and less on play .Not many administrators held onto long traditions of play or to the newest research that connected play neurologically to later academic learning. Motor skills, art,music and movement are all essential to the emotional and academic levels of early childhood and later success in math reading and the sciences ...and of course the arts . Yet administrators got on the bandwagon and then ignored what research was showing .,we will see the impact in this decade .

And it isn't just preschoolers and kindergartners who benefit from play.  Older children also benefit academically from having free play. 

I don't have a problem with full-day kindergarten at all.  My kids went back in the time when it was half-day but then went to the Kindergarten ASP and the two together were an ideal full-day K program.    It's the content and approach to learning that concerns me.

my feeling is that if a child NEEDS full day preschool...heck anything more than parent paid 2-3 half days (except when the child has a disability).....the parent shouldn't have kids...there is no reason a child needs a formal full day education for pre school....that is something a parent should be able to provide through normal pay...if the parent doesn't have the mental capacity to teach pre school level skills ..they should not be parents and should have themselves fixed like a dog..

and they are pushing academics earlier than some kids are developmentally ready.

lack of time to engage in self directed play as caused people to be unable to direct themselves...for a long time now...kids have been dragged from one organized activity to another...

but in my generation...we organized our own activities and learned to interact with others without being directed every moment

jmitw said:

my feeling is that if a child NEEDS full day preschool...heck anything more than parent paid 2-3 half days (except when the child has a disability).....the parent shouldn't have kids...there is no reason a child needs a formal full day education for pre school....that is something a parent should be able to provide through normal pay...if the parent doesn't have the mental capacity to teach pre school level skills ..they should not be parents and should have themselves fixed like a dog..

and they are pushing academics earlier than some kids are developmentally ready.

lack of time to engage in self directed play as caused people to be unable to direct themselves...for a long time now...kids have been dragged from one organized activity to another...

but in my generation...we organized our own activities and learned to interact with others without being directed every moment

 ... And we can see what a wise and compassionate person that helped you turn out to be.

Teachers (especial early childhood educators) have, for years,  been saying that the push to early academics is not a good thing for overall educations/psychological development. There's a quote that says "The business of childhood IS play" and that's very true. Playing with blocks is a precursor to skills dealing with math and those areas of it that require spatial visualization.  Making up imaginary worlds and the adventures that go with them free the mind. Playing in the mud, turning over rocks, working in a garden, growing things...all are laying the groundwork for so much later in life. Sitting at a desk and learning to print at the age of 3 doesn't necessarily correlate to any increased ability down the road.

Free time, when children have to work out how to cooperate, play together, express their desires and figure out how to compromise is very important as well.

How many times do we have to read about the Finnish educational system, to think about Montressori schools and to look at the increase in children who can't sit still, can't focus, are disruptive in class before we change how we are delivering education to our very young children?  I'd be willing to bet that there is a definite relationship between the increased academics at early ages (where children are supposed to sit still, listen to the teacher and then follow instructions) and the increased incidence of "learning disabilities"/specifically ADD or ADHD. Maybe these kids are simply showing that our current educational shoe doesn't fit their feet! 

eta: (Note: I'm not saying that ADD/ADHD are not real issues - just that the increase in their incidence has skyrocketed along with the push for increased academics at very early grades).

I found the article fascinating.  I remember a co-worker's struggles with a very academic PreK.  It was at his wife's worksite (a major corporate campus), and was thus convenient and possibly subsidized, so they really wanted their child to be there.  But they were pressuring the parents to work with him on improving his writing and letter recognition skills, or they "wouldn't be able to advance him to the four year old class".  So developmentally inappropriate for that child.

spontaneous said:

And it isn't just preschoolers and kindergartners who benefit from play.  Older children also benefit academically from having free play. 

This is quite true, and it concerns me. I'm not sure my memory is accurate, but I remember 45 to 60 minutes for a combined lunch and recess period. We ate, and then we went outside. I understand this is shrinking. And there were kids who couldn't sit still even after that, suggesting that they probably needed more than that short period of movement and play. I'm hearing that recess has gotten shorter now.

I just read an article about how dance is the best preventative against dementia, more than other exercise, more than crossword puzzles. We need to move.

And as adults, we are fat and weak. We've had to build gyms because regular life has taken all the manual labor away.

We need to move. We are physical beings, and we seem to have forgotten this. 

jmitw said:

my feeling is that if a child NEEDS full day preschool...heck anything more than parent paid 2-3 half days (except when the child has a disability).....the parent shouldn't have kids...there is no reason a child needs a formal full day education for pre school....that is something a parent should be able to provide through normal pay...if the parent doesn't have the mental capacity to teach pre school level skills ..they should not be parents and should have themselves fixed like a dog..

 So, in your world, both parents are never allowed to work, and if both need to work to financially survive, then they should never have kids because they'd have to enroll their kids in preschool because it's less expensive than a nanny. Right. Gotcha. *eyerolls*

I don't believe any part of the article touched on full day verses half day, and neither did the research.  That isn't the issue here.  The issue is pushing academics too early in the misguided belief that it will lead to better results down the road.  

I know that anecdotes aren't scientific, but I can't help but think to a friend of mine whose five year old initially loved kindergarten but a few months in started having stress issues and eventually was talking in his sleep saying "I can't do more numbers, please don't make me do more numbers."  When my friend approached the teachers the one with a few decades of experience relayed that the curriculum now labeled as kindergarten used to be for 2nd graders back when she started her career. The teacher was not happy with this at all, but her hands were tied.

meganlibrarian said:

jmitw said:

my feeling is that if a child NEEDS full day preschool...heck anything more than parent paid 2-3 half days (except when the child has a disability).....the parent shouldn't have kids...there is no reason a child needs a formal full day education for pre school....that is something a parent should be able to provide through normal pay...if the parent doesn't have the mental capacity to teach pre school level skills ..they should not be parents and should have themselves fixed like a dog..

 So, in your world, both parents are never allowed to work, and if both need to work to financially survive, then they should never have kids because they'd have to enroll their kids in preschool because it's less expensive than a nanny. Right. Gotcha. *eyerolls*

Some interesting research regarding working parents. It is not how much time you spend with your child, but the quality of the time spent with the child that matters. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/upshot/mounting-evidence-of-some-advantages-for-children-of-working-mothers.html?_r=0

sprout said:

jmitw said:

my feeling is that if a child NEEDS full day preschool...heck anything more than parent paid 2-3 half days (except when the child has a disability).....the parent shouldn't have kids...there is no reason a child needs a formal full day education for pre school....that is something a parent should be able to provide through normal pay...if the parent doesn't have the mental capacity to teach pre school level skills ..they should not be parents and should have themselves fixed like a dog..

and they are pushing academics earlier than some kids are developmentally ready.

lack of time to engage in self directed play as caused people to be unable to direct themselves...for a long time now...kids have been dragged from one organized activity to another...

but in my generation...we organized our own activities and learned to interact with others without being directed every moment

 ... And we can see what a wise and compassionate person that helped you turn out to be.

 Sweet jesus...this is ONE offensive post!

mammabear said:

sprout said:

jmitw said:

my feeling is that if a child NEEDS full day preschool...heck anything more than parent paid 2-3 half days (except when the child has a disability).....the parent shouldn't have kids...there is no reason a child needs a formal full day education for pre school....that is something a parent should be able to provide through normal pay...if the parent doesn't have the mental capacity to teach pre school level skills ..they should not be parents and should have themselves fixed like a dog..

and they are pushing academics earlier than some kids are developmentally ready.

lack of time to engage in self directed play as caused people to be unable to direct themselves...for a long time now...kids have been dragged from one organized activity to another...

but in my generation...we organized our own activities and learned to interact with others without being directed every moment

 ... And we can see what a wise and compassionate person that helped you turn out to be.

 Sweet jesus...this is ONE offensive post!

I think you are talking about jmitw's post.  If so, then I agree wholeheartedly and I think sprout is agreeing with you.  

I'm sure she is.

spon- I raised Montessori pre-K and K as what I believe to be a good mix of play/socializing and academics.  I think that the balance of both is the ideal, vs the lack of any formal pre-K/K or immersion in a purely academic one.

jmitw said:

my feeling is that if a child NEEDS full day preschool...heck anything more than parent paid 2-3 half days (except when the child has a disability).....the parent shouldn't have kids...there is no reason a child needs a formal full day education for pre school....that is something a parent should be able to provide through normal pay...if the parent doesn't have the mental capacity to teach pre school level skills ..they should not be parents and should have themselves fixed like a dog..

and they are pushing academics earlier than some kids are developmentally ready.

lack of time to engage in self directed play as caused people to be unable to direct themselves...for a long time now...kids have been dragged from one organized activity to another...

but in my generation...we organized our own activities and learned to interact with others without being directed every moment

 Ward and June would agree with you wholeheartedly.

Look, jmitw's tone has placed him/her firmly on the troll list.  Some points (about early academics and the value of play) might be discussion-worthy, but not when combined with the suggestion that people of lower mental capacity should be "fixed like a dog".  

That comment puts jmitw on the list of people who only deserve to be ignored, at least until he/she shows back up to take responsibility for the nastiness of that comment.  

No amount of "in my generation..." talk makes sheer nastiness OK.  Age does not excuse venom, and my respect for age stops at the door when jmitw says things like this, since they show no respect for others.  Ward and June would be much kinder.

susan1014 said:

Look, jmitw's tone has placed him/her firmly on the troll list.  Some points (about early academics and the value of play) might be discussion-worthy, but not when combined with the suggestion that people of lower mental capacity should be "fixed like a dog".  

That comment puts jmitw on the list of people who only deserve to be ignored, at least until he/she shows back up to take responsibility for the nastiness of that comment.  

No amount of "in my generation..." talk makes sheer nastiness OK.  Age does not excuse venom, and my respect for age stops at the door when jmitw says things like this, since they show no respect for others.  Ward and June would be much kinder.

 That's a good point. 

sprout said:

I HAVE COMPASSION FOR THE KIDS WITH IDIOTIC PARENTS...AND THE TAXPAYERS WHO HAVE TO DO THE PARENTS JOB FOR THEM!

jmitw said:
my feeling is that if a child NEEDS full day preschool...heck anything more than parent paid 2-3 half days (except when the child has a disability).....the parent shouldn't have kids...there is no reason a child needs a formal full day education for pre school....that is something a parent should be able to provide through normal pay...if the parent doesn't have the mental capacity to teach pre school level skills ..they should not be parents and should have themselves fixed like a dog..


and they are pushing academics earlier than some kids are developmentally ready.


lack of time to engage in self directed play as caused people to be unable to direct themselves...for a long time now...kids have been dragged from one organized activity to another...


but in my generation...we organized our own activities and learned to interact with others without being directed every moment

... And we can see what a wise and compassionate person that helped you turn out to be.

I AM TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO INSIST ON ACTING LIKE STUPID AND LOWER FORMS OF ANIMALS...EVEN PEOPLE WITH LOWER IQs AND OTHER DISABILITIES CAN BE DECENT PARENTS....IF THEY TRY...THE PROBLEM IS THAT MANY DO NOT TRY AND LEAVE IT UP TO THE TAXPAYERS>>>>>YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT TAXES IF YOU WANT PEOPLE WHO BEHAVE LIKE WILD ANIMALS TO HAVE KIDS AT YOUR EXPENSE....

MOST OF THE KIDS GETTING FREE TAXPAYER PRESCHOOL AND OTHER GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS HAVE PARENTS PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF BEING APPROPRIATE>>>EXCEPT FOR THEIR ATTITUDE...>>WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR THAT!

susan1014 said:
Look, jmitw's tone has placed him/her firmly on the troll list. Some points (about early academics and the value of play) might be discussion-worthy, but not when combined with the suggestion that people of lower mental capacity should be "fixed like a dog".
That comment puts jmitw on the list of people who only deserve to be ignored, at least until he/she shows back up to take responsibility for the nastiness of that comment.
No amount of "in my generation..." talk makes sheer nastiness OK. Age does not excuse venom, and my respect for age stops at the door when jmitw says things like this, since they show no respect for others. Ward and June would be much kinder.

WHY SHOULDn"T PEOPLE WHO WILLFULLY ACT LIKE A LOWER FORM THAN A DOG BE FIXED BY A DOG????

AND AGAIN...I AM TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WILLFULLY ACTING INAPPROPRIATELY EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF ACTING HUMAN>>>>>BUT THINK THEY HAVE A RIGHT FOR TAXPAYERS TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR KIDS

If humans who insist on acting like wild dogs were fixed....the children would not be born to suffer....many families in areas that have taxpayers (mostly from other towns) providing free full day preschool make a career out of getting various welfare benefits...including lying and exaggerating on SSI applications to get welfare for kids with minor health problems...THEY PLAN TO HAVE TAXPAYERS SUPPORT THEM AND THEIR KIDS..often for many baby daddys..

AND ANOTHER POINT IS THAT KIDS NEED TO ENGAGE IN FREE PLAY AMONG THEMSELVES (LIKE WE DID IN MY GENERATION) to learn how to interact..they don't need organized preschool and full day kindergarten shoved down their throats at that age..that is not what they need to learn at that point.....

and then during elementary years they need LIMITED organized after school activities...so they have time for free play...but most are involved in many organized sports/clubs/lessons instead..and never learn to think for themselves..

like you people refusing to think about what i said and just attacking me for pointing out the facts.

Now that, ladies and gentlemen, was a fine rant.

Well, depending on your definition of "fine", I suppose. It was, however, absolutely hilarious to read if you imagine the words coming from a modern-day tea party-fueled Howard Beale on some sort of community access TV at 2AM.

ctrzaska said:
Well, depending on your definition of "fine", I suppose. It was, however, absolutely hilarious to read if you imagine the words coming from a modern-day tea party-fueled Howard Beale on some sort of community access TV at 2AM.

By "fine", I meant a good example of a rant. A rant is not judged by its content but, rather, by the delivery. Is the ranter's heart into the rant? Can you feel the ranter's righteous anger? These are important criteria.

Oh that it was, yes.

And ranting to suggest that we should raise our kids the way s/he was raised. Ranting at others is such a great way to demonstrate those positive outcomes!

Again, the issue isn't full day vs half day kindergarten. The issue is forcing academics on children before they are ready and the long lasting damage that can result from doing so.