Brookings Experts Wonder Why Early Childhood Ed Isn’t Working

Accuracy in Academia ^ | December 2, 2016 | Spencer Irvine

[ml/nj]

Maybe the problem is that previous recommendations of Brookings experts were followed?

ML/NJ

[1Old Pro]

Brooking should consult one of their own who gets it and wrote about it over the past decade or so - Eric Hanushuk

[tbw2]

For children from broken homes and with poor quality parenting, high quality childcare from a small group of dedicated caregivers over a long period of time helps offset the poor home environment.
Putting children in daycare for long periods of time with a series of female caregivers of the same poor quality care/supervision/education as their own mothers makes no difference or is actually worse if it creates instability/anxiety that wouldn’t have been as bad if at home with Mom all day.

[riverdawg]

Hanushek has also repeatedly found that reducing class size (a favorite initiative of the teachers’ unions) has no effect on educational outcomes:

http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Hanushek%201999%20EvidenceonCLassSize.pdf

[bert]

mama’s are liked better than babysitters.

there is no education involved.

There is child care and educator welfare

[aquila48]

And indoctrination - they want to get to them as early as possible.

[FXRP]

The children in these programs come largely from poor, single mother families. Of course they have a bad attitude when they reach first grade. A large number of their parents are uneducated fools who don't value schooling. Why would eggheads expect the kids to be any different. I'll bet their IQ scores are considerably lower than the general population as well. (stupid people produce stupid kids)

So... Captain Obvious is in order here:

[Java4Jay]

Education starts in the home

[jch10]

I’ll tell you why.....for free.

[AFreeBird]

Uh, maybe because the kids are still trying to figure how they work. New system still coming on-line, calibrations and testing is an ongoing process.

Not quite ready to be crammed full of crap.

Let the kids be kids.

[shhrubbery!]

Perhaps 5-year olds need loving parents, not government programmers.
Maybe pre-K kids are too young to benefit from education, most people don't remember anything from such an early age and the kids would rather play anyway.

In Sweden it has long been recognized that children younger than 7 do not benefit from schooling. The optimal period of brain development for teaching reading, they believe, is around age 7. Trying to force it earlier could result in the child's getting 'burnt out' on academics.

Of course many children who are lovingly cared for at home, and whose parents read books to them, just naturally start reading early (as my children did).

But plunking tiny children into institutionalized settings and forcing them to study their ABCs is counterproductive.

Thank God Hillary was not elected, because one of the centerpieces of her campaign was for federal funding for "universal early childhood education." In our state we already have this boondoggle forced on us. State taxpayers are compelled to fund "universal pre-K" in our "poorly performing" urban districts. This has not only been a disaster of corruption, but it has been proved there are no lasting benefits to the children! Yet the program goes on and on.

I hope Ivanka is not going to push a sort of Hillary-lite version of this.

[KosmicKitty]

Education begins at home by parents. You really can’t replace that with a government program

[stocksthatgoup]

Most kids are happier to be home with Mom until they are older

[polymuser]

Yep. Another guv program with wonderful results. /s
Half of America understands why it’s failed.

[fella]

"LET THEM PLAY!"

Absolutely.

Young creatures need plenty of stimulating exercise to develop muscles and minds. Take away the game controllers and send them outside to mix it up with the other kids.

Of couse when outside they can become prey to the highly protected species of LBGTVXYZ. But in life you learn by taking chances.