Strollerderby : early childhood education

Outdoor Preschools: The New Montessori?

Shannon LC Cate — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:32:00 GMT

A new trend in preschool education has several UK parents enthralled. In these schools, the children spend almost the entire day outdoors. Rain or shine or snow, the children romp unfettered in outdoor spaces, playing with natural and found materials, learning from experience as they encounter challenges like bugs and thorn bushes.

Enthusiasts claim that nearly exclusive outdoor education (one school in Scotland doesn't even have a building, but only tents and tarps) is better for all kinds of development--not merely physical but mental. Sue Palmer, director of the Farley Outdoor Learning Nursery in Wiltshire, claims:

“The children are the healthiest you could wish to meet, we have no allergies, very little illness, their speech and language is far more advanced than others of their age because they’re outside doing things and learning to be independent. It is truly amazing.”

Amazing, indeed. With not much but gut instinct and a popular book, The Last Child in the Woods by Richard Louv, to guide them, outdoor preschool advocates make some broad claims. My instinct tells me they are probably right that kids in industrialized cultures don't get enough time outdoors, are asked to sit still under artificial lighting for too many hours in schools and their minds and bodies suffer for it. But my instinct also leans towards the notion that balance is a good idea too, and that a nursery school that takes place exclusively outdoors--even in foul weather--may be overcorrecting for the problem. Besides, in Wiltshire, snow may be a lovely treat in 35 (F) degree weather, but in Chicago, I'd just as soon let the kids learn to build a fire in the fireplace during a January ice storm in sub-zero temperatures.

What do you think? Would you camp out to get your kid into a school without a building?

image: timesonline.co.uk

Arne Duncan: Dunce or Great Pick?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:00 GMT

Honeymoon? What honeymoon? People have been burning up the web debating the choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration, but not make any policy. Meanwhile, not nearly as much as been said about Obama's choice for the crucial position of Secretary of Education.

Maybe that's because, like me, people don't know what to think of Arne Duncan.

On the one hand, investigative journalist (and Obama supporter) Greg Palast says Duncan is a piss-poor choice, one of those businessman-turned-education-administrators who thinks that you can raise test scores in poor, underserved schools by firing the teachers there as punishment. Not to mention believing that "raising test scores" as such is the top priority. Palast thinks Duncan won't give us any change from the No Child Left Behind disaster, and snipes that the Obamas didn't trust their kids to Duncan (who was recently head of the Chicago schools).

On the other hand, this Harvard magazine profile describes his support of a range of non-test-crazy stuff like after-school programs, literacy, opening school buildings to the community, and engaging parents. He's also a supporter of LGBT safe-school initiatives and early childhood education. Of course, alumni profiles are not known for being critical.

Anyone out there with kids in Chicago public schools, or who follows education reform more closely, want to weigh in on this one?

More by this author:

Morning News: Obama Chooses Education Secretary; Pledges $10 billion for Early Education

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:45:00 GMT

Yesterday, President-Elect Barack Obama named Arne Duncan, Chicago schools superintendent to be hiss education secretary in the coming administration. Duncan is behind Obama's strong support of early childhood education programs, towards which Obama has pledged $10 billion. (As a comparison, Head Start, which serves about a million children is a $7 billion program.) One such program for poor children is the Chicago Educare Center. To see how children six months through five years are spending their days in this program, check out the New York Times slides show.

There are arguments about opening free preschool programs to the middle-class, Obama says he wants to keep the focus on the poor. Unfortunately, it looks like more and more children might be eligible for free preschool and free lunch after Obama takes office. According to the Washington Post, welfare rolls are growing and applications increasing in many states. 40% of new recipients have never applied for assistance before, many falling from the middle and upper-middle class, having lost white collar jobs and now unable to find work even in retail or fast food.

But rich, poor or in-between, the real question is, what should our children be playing with?

A new UK study finds that children's toys are more gendered now than ever before (so much for free to be you and me) and consequently, that girls--whose toys encourage little learning and more docility than boys'--are behind in math and science. Are such claims enough to make you rethink your stocking stuffers?

FInally, the Federal Reserve cut the interest rate to .25% yesterday, saying they will allow it to fall to zero. That's right, folks, zero percent. In other words, the government will be loaning itself money for free. They hope to send us all back into the stock market, desperate for better returns on our investments (what investments? you ask? us too). But if you have two nickels to rub together this is going to be a great time to buy a car or a house, as rates might fall below 5% for auto loans and mortgages. If you can get a mortgage, that is.

image: ounceofprevention.org

Experts Say Using College Fund For Preschool is Money Better Spent

Karen Murphy — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:58:00 GMT

Here you've been squirreling away your nickels for your kid's eventual college tuition, and it turns out that early childhood development experts are suggesting that instead we focus on the first three years of life, saying that money spent then is money well spent indeed. The reason? An estimated 85% of brain development occurs during the first three years of a child's life, which are key to shaping the person that child eventually becomes. By pouring time, love, and energy into a child's first three years, we can greatly benefit and enhance that development, allowing our children the opportunity to truly live up to their potential.

Many countries around the world are no stranger to this concept, knowing that a child's behavior, emotions, social and intellectual skills can all be traced back to the formative years first three years. In Sweden for instance, the government provides support for families with young children so that a parent can stay home. While I don't expect that to happen in the U.S., at least not anytime soon, it's something to aspire to.

The biggest hurdle, however, is cultural attitudes about the relative worth of early childhood education and especially the educators themselves. Preschool teachers are paid a pittance and receive little respect especially when compared to post-secondary educators, although attitudes do seem to be improving. Still, it will take a huge shift in priorities and perception to overcome this and truly give early childhood education the attention it, and our children, deserve.

So what's a concerned parent to do? I mean, something we all aren't doing already? Because already, those who can stay home and play pattycake and get shunned from playgroups are doing so. And those who need to work because the family needs the income are doing so as well, and are finding the best possible child-care situations possible. I think, though, that raising the bar on what's available as "best possible" is a must. Too many parents are forced into choosing the least-objectionable child-care, and to me, to those parents, and to the children concerned, that's not good enough.