An Argument for Preschool

Don't children need an academic-type pre-K in order to get ready for kindergarten?
I think in this environment, with No Child Left Behind, there is a hyperemphasis on numeracy and literacy at the expense of other aspects of learning. They worry about what will happen to their kids when they get to school, and so they put pressure on them early. But that's a mistake. Before kids can learn, they need to have experiences being social, regulating their emotions, to play in groups. Those are all important lessons too.

Are there specific pre-K approaches parents should look for?
There are a number of outstanding models. For instance, Reggio Emilia, which is based around art and creativity, and High/Scope, which emphasizes hands-on learning and encourages children to be active, engaged learners, are two very good ones. The good news about pre-K is this: there is pretty much one bad model—the skills-and-drills model, which emphasizes rote learning and where children are given "repeat after me"-type experiences. But there are many, many good ones.

Does Head Start provide a high-quality pre-K experience?
For the most part, yes. The problem with Head Start is that it is very limited. It only reaches the poorest of the poor—and it only has enough money to serve half of the eligible kids.

Are we going to see the spread of preschools continue?
I believe that it's got to. It's good science, good economics and good demographics. Most mothers work. Kids need experiences so they can grow and develop. It is widely recognized now that preschool is the easiest place to start.

© 2008