More people, myself included, are becoming proponents of Universal Preschool. Preschool is not only where a child first begins their long journey in school (if they choose to enter preschool), but some say it is the best place to first take on the achievement gap (outside of directly influencing the greater issue of SES and poverty). This piece by NYTimes Op-Ed Contributor Ann Hulbert, addresses: 1)should Universal Prekindergarten (UPK) exist, and 2) if so, what should it look like? While she doesn't come up with any direct answers, Hulbert does a good job at framing the debate.
The article first looks at the issue that an increase in PreK enrollment leads to a decrease in per-child spending (see graphic). But the bigger focus of this article is on whether a UPK would be more child-centered/explorative/creative (as many progressives and high-income families want), or more structured/academic (as many conservatives want, and lower-income children might need). My favorite quote:
"Nobody wants a two-tiered system, which isn’t likely to narrow the achievement gap, or a rigid one-size-fits-all system, either. But the UPK mission is an impetus to notice that at each end of the spectrum there are pedagogical lessons the other end wouldn’t get otherwise and that everyone could benefit from".
Like Hulbert, I am somewhere in the middle, and think that both approaches provide important benefits to children. For the sake of disclosure, my current job is teaching at a private PreK place that a) helps children primarily from more middle to upper class backgrounds, and b) definitely falls under the structured/academic school of thinking. My school wants to prepare kids for the classroom first. Enriching their explorative and creative side is secondary. While I see many of the benefits of the school in how the children behave and perform on academic tasks, I often wonder whether more time should be spent doing "fun stuff".
1 comment:
What do you feel about school choice from the POV of a private pre-school?
Post a Comment