The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The early years affect the later years so let's aim high > Comments

The early years affect the later years so let's aim high : Comments

By Susan Irvine, published 16/5/2013

There is a huge body of international research that shows every dollar invested in quality child care pays a dividend of $7 to $20 that doesn't have to be spent later in welfare, jails and hospitals.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
First the good news… The expectation of a quality preschool education is a good one.

But the bases for the rest of the article have turned me into a grumpy old man.

The providers of quality preschool age child care should be their parents and families. It should be an expectation that parents and families arrange their affairs in order to do this - of course it won't always be easy and without self-sacrifice, but it should be regarded as a pre-requisite for having children.

To attempt less risks a culture of blame shifting. "It's not my fault my teenager's a thug, obviously the daycare she got from six months of age wasn't quality! I'm going to sue."

Unless, it occurs to me, the push for extended hours care centres for the cognitively-challenged people in society who prefer their food puréed is a cunning plan by bureaucrats to save money into the future by eventually combining young and old age care into single facilities.

Does make a weird sort of sense. Both require lots of care and attention, locked gates to stop them wandering and copious use of nappies.

And I just realised, it's a time efficient service for the work-hassled middle generations who can visit their children and their parents in one go.

Okay – I've now changed my mind, it's all good, as long as it is 'quality'…

Welcome to the "Extended Family Extended Day Care Centre for the Edentulous".
Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 16 May 2013 10:05:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Exactly Susan,exactly!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 16 May 2013 10:36:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WmTevor,

"The providers of quality preschool age childcare should be their parents and families. It should be an expectation that parents and families arrange their affairs in order to do this - of course, it won't always be easy and without self-sacrifice, but it should be regarded as a pre-requisite for having children."

Yes!

Of course, your attitude would fly in the face of the modern phenomenon whereby tots are conveyed into the factory for processing at ever more tender years so their folks are free to embrace consumer society to the fullest extent.

I wonder why Finland has such superior education outcomes when they don't start schooling their children until seven years-old. Methinks it's got something to do with the fact that infants learn what they need to learn perfectly well in a home/community environment - they always have.

(not to mention a superior education model)
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 16 May 2013 10:58:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a much better and easier solution to the problems of the younger child.
The solution is to make compulsory, as part of the early education system, one hour per week of discussion between the children themselves, of open ended questions, preferably questions arising from a story or poem.
Such a system has been reliably shown to reduce bad behaviour and to teach youngsters mutual respect. As a by-product each child's intellectual capability will improve by 6-7% and the child will make much improved decision throughout their life as they mature.
The NSW ethics classes are based on this concept which is explained by the report on this site at;
http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/Clackmannan.doc
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 16 May 2013 12:53:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Foyle,

It's extraordinary that very young children learn from pottering around and asking questions. Infants, toddlers and young children at home with a parent or carer usually spend the day doing stuff, emulating their parents and siblings - and yes, having all sorts of discussions in a one-on-one situation with the people around them. They aren't required to have to vie for attention with a hoard of other children all around the same age.

I wonder which is the optimum circumstance for learning?
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 16 May 2013 1:03:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, it is important that "children" receive a "systems" free introduction into this "adult" world, Santa Claus is a myth that gives adults some amusement, they say the children love it, they might, but when they realize they were made use of and lied to I wonder what they think of their parents and those who told them "it's all true-we wouldn't lie to YOU".
The "easter bunny" is another example, these dishonest myths set the pattern of "it's ok to lie-my parents did!"
I was lucky, my mother told me from the beginning "it's just pretend" we would laugh at the antics of other members of the family and adult friends who wanted me to accept their fairy stories as truth. I was never forced to accept religion as truth, I went to "sunday school" just to see why other children thought it was so important, I realized it was their parents that insisted they be there, most thought it was silly and boring but "I'll get in trouble if I don't go" was the usual cry when I wanted to play in the park instead of listening to the giggling halfwit telling us fairy stories, I was lucky I had a choice.
What this shows is that children should NOT be forced to accept any "belief system" when they are at a vulnerable age, and their parents are virtually blackmailed into sending their offspring to Church.
Posted by lockhartlofty, Thursday, 16 May 2013 1:13:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and the evidence of having a loving mother looking after her children while a loving father provides. Not aloud to go there because the results would be embarassing. No doubt the children are far more likely to thrive with that scenario.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 16 May 2013 1:28:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on folks, Susan is only trying to promote some jobs for her graduates. Lets face it, no jobs for graduates could lead to no faculty.

But do tell us Suse, who did all this research you talk of. It wouldn't have been folk like yourself, trying to justify their existence now would it?

Still I suppose it could be worse, you could have used the fools who reckon a bit of plant food will cook the whole planet, & we all know, they'll say anything for a quid.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 16 May 2013 1:40:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very long term US study followed a substantial sample of children from their very early years, to well into their adulthood.
The survey measured the different if common outcomes, between those who attended preschool and those that didn't.
As Susan will no doubt confirm, the difference couldn't be more stark, and backs everything Susan has commented on, with cogent validation!
Just for starters, those kids that got the preschool head start, were generally reading by the second grade.
Those with no head start, often failed to learn to read by grade two.
And this group then went on to leave school as illiterates, and to lose out every which way as a consequence.
A healthy debate is a fine way to sort the wheat from the chaff, the facts from assumption!
But at no time can we mount a case or alternative argument, while ignoring the plain as the nose on your face evidence.
Sure Finland has a superior education model, a model that includes home schooling, and a climate and harsh winter conditions, that make such outcomes almost mandatory!
I mean it's not like kids can go out and play, in winter blizzard conditions.
Moreover, average Finnish incomes, allow many women to CHOOSE to stay at home and educate their own kids, with the basics.
Something almost any adult with basic reading skills can manage!
But beyond the scope of women, who needs must work full-time, just to balance the family budget.
Perhaps if we also compared average pay scales between Australia and Finland, we might shed some additional light, and or underline the fact, that we do need a one stop child care/preschool/primary school paradigm.
If we would but give our kids the best possible start; and enable them to seek and get far better outcomes, throughout their adult lives!
And we the people, get a big time 7 for 1 payback, for this modest initial investment, in our nation's future!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 16 May 2013 2:57:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What's the big deal with a little tot learning to read?

There are heaps of things to learn before you go about learning to read. Isn't it a fact that children master about 80 percent of what they will need to have in place in order to participate fully in human activities before they turn five. That's a lot of stuff going down in each and every child as they grow through these formative years....that's "formative".

My son began reading fluently while he was still in kindergarten and my daughter at pre-school (in both cases, it was spontaneous, not coached). It was all very nice and all that, but I never supposed that either of my children would succeed on the strength of their early reading ability.....much more to it than that.

I think we have to get over this thing we have for interrupting normal early-childhood development with oodles of scripted learning goals.

Frankly your reference to..."...we do need a one stop/childcare/ preschool/primary school paradigm.." sends shivers down my spine.

Just like going to the mall.

Funny, isn't it, how different parts of the set up reflect each other.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 16 May 2013 3:28:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The thing is, Poirot, that there are children for whom childcare and pre-school are the only calm and ordered places in a dysfuntcional life. These are the ones for who intervention provides the greatest benefit, and for whom the delightful family childhood you describe is never going to happen. Staff trained in early childhood development can also identify problems that can best be helped by early intervention. Again, not necessary in your ideal family who would doubtless be alert to any difficulties being experienced by their children, but vital for children from families who are, for a variety of reasons, clueless and/or disinterested. So we can either sit back and say it is the parents' problem and watch the cycle of social disadvantage keep on rolling through the next generation or we can try to help children out of trouble.

If you have ever observed families from different socio-economic groups you will have noticed that the further down the pecking order the less likely it is for children to ever have a discussion with their parents. Communication is constructed as a series of commands: Come here, sit down, don't do that, get in the car. No please, no thank you, no reason given for the command. They need to learn what you and I would regard as normal social interaction, and they don't learn it at home. When they start school without these basic skills they can really struggle.
Posted by Candide, Thursday, 16 May 2013 5:59:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have learned that day care centres don't see Day Care in the same terms as me.

To me, they're just minding my kids, but to them they're taking my children on a fantastic educational journey of personal fulfillment in an encouraging inclusive atmosphere.

To me, my kids painted some lines on some paper. To them, they have explored the wonderful world of colours with the care center's 'Art Specialist' (No sh1t it's on their web site), and learned to express themselves using a visual medium.

In the end our 'goals and expectations' are different. I'm happy if the kids are kept off the road, and not kicked in the head by another kid daily. The center are looking to be the cornerstone of my child's life, and feel entirely responsible for my child's emotional, physical and intellectual development.

But I can see candide's point. My kids go 2 days a week, and the extra money earned while they are out of the way allows us the luxury of overseas travel to see grandparents more often. Some kids have but one parent, working dog-long days, with emotional problems and drug dependencies, and are there all week.

Each to their own,
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 16 May 2013 7:38:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll give you a real life example:

My oldest son, approaching 9 in September, born when my wife and I had been (wife, up until approximately 2 months prior to giving birth) working full-time.

I continued in this employment, working from 7am until 6pm and up to 3 days per week until 9pm.

My wife, as part of her employment agreement, as a Paramedic (shift-work), returned to work when my son was 7 months old, we were both fortunate to have extended family and flexibility in our arrangements, but despite this we put our son into day-care at age 9 months.

Is he normal, is he functional, is he damaged by 'his' experience in the day-care system, probably too early to tell, but he has just sat his year 3 NAPLAN tests and by all accounts fits well in the educational 'system'. He is by our count, well adjusted, inquisitive and pretty clever compared to some of his peers.

Our other son, just turned six in April, is in my view, immature for his age, hard to work with in any rational sense of the norm and is a complete challenge for his current teacher, despite attending Kindergarten, Pre-Primary School, and now his first year of 'so-called' school.

Second child, just mentioned, did go to day-care, but started at aged 3 and for just one day per week. He was socially different to his brother and I would suggest more influenced by his brothers presence, i.e. competitive.

Our home life has changed little; our financial situation has changed little other than we both earn more, according to statistics, although I would argue otherwise given true, updated, CPI figures for Perth.

Are they different, damn right they are, I would suggest DNA and a different set of circumstances had a lot to play in their development to date.

As to aiming high, I would ask 'who is setting the bar, and why'.

We need to remember 'everyone is different', get used to this fact and the nonsensical theoretical lesson from the Academic will fade into irrelevance quite quickly.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Thursday, 16 May 2013 9:56:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whenever a "Progressive" talks about la-la rates of return you can be sure it's another snout trying to get into the publics pocket. Remember the expertise that has given us a broken laptop for every child, dodgy school tin sheds (halls), deaths in refugee camps / high seas / ceilings also comes up with this begging bowl.
Posted by McCackie, Friday, 17 May 2013 12:44:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McCackie,

'Progressives' filter everything through gender. And from a gender perspective this is simply the continued 'professionalisation' of female dominated jobs in an attempt to push up wages.

The idea that 3 year olds need curriculum and learning objectives is just rubbish.
Posted by dane, Friday, 17 May 2013 2:44:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You need to look past the jargon. 'Curriculum' and 'learning objectives' are just edu-babble for 'what we plan to do' and 'what we hope to achieve'. In the case of pre-schoolers, it can be as simple as letting them draw, paint and play with puzzles so they develop fine motor skills (and therefore can cope with a pencil when they are learning to write), or playing outdoor games which involve throwing and catching balls, climbing and balancing, which can build gross motor skills which will make them more capable at school sport. Again, it is about setting them up to succeed at school - a child who struggles with these basic abilities is starting on the back foot. Struggle-fail-give up: a fairly common primary school scenario, and if you give up in primary school, you are at a huge disadvantage.
Posted by Candide, Saturday, 18 May 2013 8:54:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
candide,
At pre-school age progress is very much determined by physical development. What might take 6 months to teach at 3 will come without problem at 4. There is variety in development among children but it is unnecessary to spend billions and professionalize what will come naturally.

And the idea that you need a 4 year degree to teach a 3 year old drawing is just pure lunacy. It is credentialism at its worst. It is just an attempt to get more people into the Labor voting academies we sometimes call universities and as n additional bonus with all these degrees women can then ask for 80k per year to teach a 3 year olds how to finger paint. And we wonder why we are going broke?

The emphasis on early years is just the latest fad to come out of education. Why not let kids be kids and start school at 6 like in Finland?
Posted by dane, Saturday, 18 May 2013 9:42:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's probably on indictment on something (?) that some people take it for granted that pre-school age children don't have access to crayons and paint or balls or climbing equipment outside of an institution.

Most young children's homes are overflowing with such paraphernalia. Have you seen the veritable theme parks that comprise the average family home backyard these days.

What makes you believe, Candide, that those skills can only be learned under direction in pre-school?

More likely, the earlier they catch little independent minds, the more roundly they can stymie any such notions of autonomous discovery.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 18 May 2013 9:56:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dane
Its not all gambolling in the snow until you turn seven in Finland: they seem to have policies for early-childhood education that you would find abhorrent.

‘Publicly funded kindergartens and preschool in Finland are of quite high-quality, with quality standards roughly on par with those universal pre-k advocates seek for publicly funded pre-k programs in the United States. Kindergartens must have at least one adult for every seven children over age three, for every four children under age three, or for every two one-year-olds (infants under age one are rarely enrolled in kindergartens because Finland offers generous parental leave supports for parents in their child’s first year of life). One out of every three adults working in kindergartens holds a bachelor’s degree as a certified kindergarten teacher (in effect, the lead teacher in each classroom). http://www.newamerica.net/blog/early-ed-watch/2008/how-finland-educates-youngest-children-9029

And there’s more:
‘ The Act on Children’s Day Care came into force more than a quarter of a century ago, in1973. According to the Act, the obligation to organise day care for children under school age rests with the local authorities. The local authorities may provide day care either in day-care centres or in the form of family day care. Since 1990, parents have enjoyed an unconditional right to day care for children under three years of age either in municipal day care or by receiving child home care allowance in order to care for their children at home. As from 1996, the parents of all children under school age have enjoyed the right to a day-care place provided by their local authority. Since August 1997, it has been possible for families to receive private child-care allowance for providing their children with private care.’

The Finnish system of early childhood education and care (ECEC) policy may be described with the concept of EduCare. It fulfils both the day-care needs of small children and the educational and instructional perspective.’ http://www.oecd.org/finland/2476019.pdf
Posted by Candide, Monday, 20 May 2013 3:02:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Candide,

I realise that for many families both parents working is just an economic reality today. I don't disagree with preschool care what I disagree with is the lastest fad about spending billions on training preschool teachers at university who end up teaching 3 year year olds to finger paint. It is just not necessary. And the way people seem to go on about EY education it's as if any child who misses out on their finger painting lesson is doomed for life.

I just don't buy it. At the end of the day it will push up prices which will end up pushing more women out of the workforce anyway. The industry warned Labor about that but in its best tradition of ideology über alles Labor went ahead anyway.
Posted by dane, Monday, 20 May 2013 8:46:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy