Generation Education

A simple proposal on education.

We believe that politicians from all sides need to come together to support a new apporoach. Generation Education is a plan that would show America's student's that we do indeed care about their future. It would empower students and teachers by enabling them to explore education and give them more of a voice in the paths their curriculum travels.

Generation Education would place an instant freeze on any and all state testing policies.

Generation Education would place a freeze on all administrative spending until the needs of the students are met.

Generation Education would review school properties across the country, allow for local feedback from students, parents and teachers. It would do so swiftly in order to enact solutions quickly.

Generation Education would place a higher focus on Physical Education and reduce the amount of wasted time a student spends in school during the day.

Generation Education would seek to create a balanced educational environment with exposure to viewpoints from across the globe and political spectrum.

Generation Education would promote friendly competitions between schools, districts, regions and states.

Education funds should not be left to chance, lotteries and gambling is not the way to tell students we care.




please add your suggestions below

Generation Education needs to push back the desk more often in the early grade levels to make education more fun.

Generation Education will not make Standardized test scores the one and only key way to say a school stinks.

A whole lot more Generation Education ideas can easily be found at the http://www.myeducationalplan.com website i created.

Wow! That's a helluva site you've got there, Kleenex!!!

I hope people check this out!

sorry, the first thing I clicked on was school prayer and could not disagree more (it's a case of majority rules that, as a minority, I find completely inappropriate in a public school). I think you should avoid the church-state separation issues and focus on actual educational ones as the former could completely derail any good you're trying to do.

kleenex, is this your website, if not who owns and sponsors it?

I looked at the kindergarten page.

I don't mean to criticize an alternative to NCLB. I am opposed to NCLB for a lot of reasons.

But wow! I do not agree with this!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KINDERGARTEN STUDENT/GRADUATE

OUTLINE

* Will be full day for all students.
* Will allow kindergarten classes in the workplace.
* Graduates will know their ABC'S and 123'S.
* They will also know how to write the alphabet at some beginning level and also know how to read at some beginning level as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*No to full day kinder. The administration is trying to achieve this though.
*The workplace? Some of my students' parents work in the fields too. Shall we have kinder classes in the fields? Just which parents are we talking about?
*My students go way beyond ABC's and 123's Somone doesn't understand the kindergarten curriculum here.
*They do this and go beyond. Kindergarten is now what 1st grade used to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry to be so critical. I know you want to come up with something that works.

KINDERGARTEN TEACHER
IN CALIFORNIA

KT -

What do you think reasonable educational goals for Kindergarten should be? Ones that are achievable and yet respect a students developmental level? Many things I've read talk about developmental readiness for the basic 3R's, and how the basic "pushing back" of curriculum is in general, a bad idea.

At some point I found a website by a Kindergarten teacher and how she does support full-day Kindergarten. She did NOT, however, support it for the purpose of simply shoving more academics into a child - she thought it beneficial because it allowed the teacher more time to really get to know the child and how he might learn best, which would allow her to better meet the needs of her students. It also allowed the children more time in centers, instead of being rushed. It sounded like her classroom was very hands-on (which sounded great to me!). Is your opposition to full day Kindergarten related to the push-back of 1st grade curriculum, or is there something else I'm not considering?

I ask only because these topics hold great fascination for me, and I always like to hear the take of an actual Kindergarten teacher.

Thanks!

I teach in the same district I attended. When I look at what my (now) 4-year-old daughter is doing in the pre-pre-k classes she goes to (they're working on writing GHI on Tuesday), it is what we learned in kindergarten. What I don't understand is, if they early grades are so much ahead of where we were, why can't all my high school kids do fractions, calculate what % they have on a 10 or 20 question quiz, why are they stumbling so much on reading? My answer (and please, feel free to disagree with me): parental involvement and concern for education wanes as the kids get older.

I'm looking at the first section of the HS class load. I've got one pet peeve first. I can't stand when people post advice on education and then have either spelling mistakes (or maybe typoes?) Things like meat instead of meet. I hope it's just a typo, but it's stuff I face around here all the time when people approach me with ideas to improve the schools and then can't spell. Not that they may not have a good idea, but it certainly puts their background in question.

I'm not trying to slam anyone here, it's just me being too tired and ornery.

From your website, Kleenex:

*I want it mandatory and in every school district.
*Will learn their ABC'S and 123'S, shapes, colors, basic words.
*They will also know how to read at some beginning level as well.
*Some basic exercise will be done as well.
*Does not have to be a full day thing and I don't think it needs to go any longer than 180 days a year either.

How much research have you really done into mandatory preschool? In my mind, it's a BAD idea. I'm not even all that crazy about voluntary universal preschool, but mandatory preschool is just a bad accident waiting to happen.

To me, THE MOST IMPORTANT thing in a child's first five years is the relationship built with caring adults around him - permanent adults, not ones that will disappear when he gets bumped up a "level" (or grade, whatever you want to call it). By ripping away a child from his parents at such an early age, you're discouraging parental involvement, because you're further perpetuating the idea that only a trained individual can prepare a child to learn. Parents give up on how to help their children, and then DON'T BECOME INVOLVED. Why should they? They've been told that they don't have the training or knowledge to (let's face it, that's what they're saying) RAISE their kids. Parents and children need those early years to bond and get to know each other - it can't happen in some magic 12 week window before mom goes back to work. On another thread, there's a lot of lament on how parents aren't involved in their kids' education, and how there just aren't enough stay at home moms anymore. What's the point of staying at home with your kids if you're just going to send them away?

Your implication is also that there should be a heavy focus on academics. If you're doing this, then you're actually going to stunt the education of these kids as they grow up. Where's the imagination? Where's the creativity? This is what preschoolers excel at, and some simply aren't developmentally ready for ABC's at an early age. Have you looked at the pedagogy on how this mandatory preschool will be set up? Will we just be drilling them with flashcards on what a square looks like? Will we actually be requiring them to read? Some kids just aren't developmentally ready for that (yes, I know I've already said that, but I think it bears repeating several more times!!!)! Are we eventually going to have a curriculum that teaches 7 month olds how to walk? No, because it's not a reasonable assumption. While literacy is something that needs to be taught, it still requires a developmental readiness that some kids just don't have at that point in time. And in the process, you've destroyed valuable time when they could just be exploring their world, asking questions, and indulging in their curiosity. It also further entrenches the child in the "instant gratification" mindset, since every second of his day is planned out for him (which is necessary for crowd control). Kids who have more time to learn how to entertain themselves by (a) turning off the TV and ( having time to explore their world ask more questions, are more curious, and generally tend to be better problem solvers - isn't that the goal of education? To ask a question and figure out how to answer it and implement the solution?

The studies on preschool education and its benefits are flawed. First, most of these studies focus on disadvantaged kids. These are the kids you'd expect to be more apt to drop out, get in with the wrong crowd, get into gangs/crime, and would be less apt to go on to college. In those situations, preschool is usually a good idea, and it's already available in the form of Head Start programs and such. But for the average, middle class child, preschool really doesn't do anything that an involved parent wouldn't already be doing anyway. Involved parents not only properly prepare their kids for school by reading to them, pointing out colors and shapes, but also are there to answer questions - ALL of the WHY questions, no matter how insignificant.

Two states that have implemented universal preschool are Georgia and Oklahoma. Oklahoma hasn't completely implemented it yet - the law has merely given the school districts the opportunity and funding to open up a preschool program to all children, regardless of socioeconomic background. In Georgia, though, the results have been interesting. I'll have to dig for the study, but it has been determined that with the implementation of the universal preschool program, the kids entering Kindergarten have been no more prepared than prior to the beginning of the program. In other words, it's not doing any good. I don't think it's a matter of poor teachers or a poor program, I just think that preschool can't necessarily provide anything to an average middle class child that an involved parent can't provide with more interaction, love, and care.

This is my website, all 10,000 plus words of it. All thoughts, Ideas, Commentary, and the design is all mine. I am the only one that works on the website. It took 1 full year to create the website to get it to a launchable version.

I am going to tackle any and all educational issues on my website which does include school prayer isssue.

I will say that Noonan did find one small tiny typo. That sucks.


Now onto the kindergarten stuff. I think for that grade level you do not have to really beyond what is taught on Sesame Street when it comes to numbers and letters. I do want to do more than just be able say the ABC'S and the 123'S.

When I say workplace, I do not mean out on a farm. I mean in an office type setting. That is what this article was talking about:

Ryman, Anne "Kindergartens in workplace?" Arizona Republic (2004) n. pag. Online. Internet. November 23, 2004
Available: http://www.azcentral.com/families/educatio...garten23Z8.html

I want full day kindergarten so they have more time in the day with a teacher to get the basics in so they can move on to the 1st grade and not be a failure.


Parents do need to get more involved in the childrens life. In some cases when you have a parent that works more than one job in the economy to exist this can become the problem. If the local area is violence filled that can be a problem as well.

NOTE: You'll have to excuse the double post - little fingers hit SOMETHING on the keyboard, and for whatever reason, the site won't let me edit the other (long) post directly. Here's all that I'd intended on posting originally, hopefully with a little more editing. :D

From your website, Kleenex:

*I want it mandatory and in every school district.
*Will learn their ABC'S and 123'S, shapes, colors, basic words.
*They will also know how to read at some beginning level as well.
*Some basic exercise will be done as well.
*Does not have to be a full day thing and I don't think it needs to go any longer than 180 days a year either.

How much research have you really done into mandatory preschool? In my mind, it's a BAD idea. I'm not even all that crazy about voluntary universal preschool, but mandatory preschool is just a bad accident waiting to happen.

To me, THE MOST IMPORTANT thing in a child's first five years is the relationship built with caring adults around him - permanent adults, not ones that will disappear when he gets bumped up a "level" (or grade, whatever you want to call it). By ripping away a child from his parents at such an early age, you're discouraging parental involvement, because you're further perpetuating the idea that only a trained individual can prepare a child to learn. Parents give up on how to help their children, and then DON'T BECOME INVOLVED. Why should they? They've been told that they don't have the training or knowledge to (let's face it, that's what they're saying) RAISE their kids. Parents and children need those early years to bond and get to know each other - it can't happen in some magic 12 week window before mom goes back to work. On another thread, there's a lot of lament on how parents aren't involved in their kids' education, and how there just aren't enough stay at home moms anymore. What's the point of staying at home with your kids if you're just going to send them away?

Your implication is also that there should be a heavy focus on academics. If you're doing this, then you're actually going to stunt the education of these kids as they grow up. Where's the imagination? Where's the creativity? This is what preschoolers excel at, and some simply aren't developmentally ready for ABC's at an early age. Have you looked at the pedagogy on how this mandatory preschool will be set up? Will we just be drilling them with flashcards on what a square looks like? Will we actually be requiring them to read? Some kids just aren't developmentally ready for that (yes, I know I've already said that, but I think it bears repeating several more times!!!)! Are we eventually going to have a curriculum that teaches 7 month olds how to walk? No, because it's not a reasonable assumption. While literacy is something that needs to be taught, it still requires a developmental readiness that some kids just don't have at that point in time. And in the process, you've destroyed valuable time when they could just be exploring their world, asking questions, and indulging in their curiosity. It also further entrenches the child in the "instant gratification" mindset, since every second of his day is planned out for him (which is necessary for crowd control). Kids who have more time to learn how to entertain themselves by (1) turning off the TV and (2) having time to explore their world ask more questions, are more curious, and generally tend to be better problem solvers - isn't that the goal of education? To ask a question and figure out how to answer it and implement the solution?

The studies on preschool education and its benefits are flawed. First, most of these studies focus on disadvantaged kids. These are the kids you'd expect to be more apt to drop out, get in with the wrong crowd, get into gangs/crime, and would be less apt to go on to college. In those situations, preschool is usually a good idea, and it's already available in the form of Head Start programs and such. But for the average, middle class child, preschool really doesn't do anything that an involved parent wouldn't already be doing anyway. Involved parents not only properly prepare their kids for school by reading to them, pointing out colors and shapes, but also are there to answer questions - ALL of the WHY questions, no matter how insignificant.

Two states that have implemented universal preschool are Georgia and Oklahoma. Oklahoma hasn't completely implemented it yet - the law has merely given the school districts the opportunity and funding to open up a preschool program to all children, regardless of socioeconomic background. In Georgia, though, the results have been interesting. I'll have to dig for the study, but it has been determined that with the implementation of the universal preschool program, the kids entering Kindergarten have been no more prepared than prior to the beginning of the program. In other words, it's not doing any good. I don't think it's a matter of poor teachers or a poor program, I just think that preschool can't necessarily provide anything to an average middle class child that an involved parent can't provide with more interaction, love, and care. Additionally,

It would also be interesting to look at Finland (I think that's the country - I'll have to go back and look at the article). Schooling there doesn't start until age seven. Yet in a comparison between the US and this country (in case my memory on it is failing me ), while the US is ahead early on, it's evens out within just a few years.

I think that a better use of education dollars would be to provide more resources for parents to enrich their children. I'm not sure what form this would take, but there should be some sort of help or guideline for parents to have in the first five years of a child's life - ideas for activities, skills that might be helpful to encourage (such as fine motor activities as a precursor to writing), and tips on how to encourage curiosity and problem solving skills. If we start focusing on encouraging parents, then we might keep parents involved as the child progresses through the traditional school system.

But good grief, let's let kids have at least a little time with their parents, please? The next logical step is to have expectant mothers show up at "utero-school" so their bellies can be taught. I don't think so.

A quick response:

I am going to argue that we need mandatory pre-school because we do need a starting off point on the childrens education. We can easily have a big debate in America on when it is best to start a childrens education.

At the pre-school education level I am not forcing teachers to be drill instructors here. The more we have that in the early grade levels the more fun we zap out of the educational system.

My website likes to talk about curriculum standards a bunch under my plan.

The problem is that there's always going to be debate about a starting point to education. I wasn't kidding about "utero-school". When we discover (and I say when, not if, because it will happen if preschool is made mandatory) the preschool program isn't preparing kids, what will we push it back to at that point? Kindergarten is a good enough starting point.

My argument is that later is better than sooner, and there's quite a bit out there that supports that argument. We need to let kids be kids.

We will agree to disagree on when to start a childs education.

My feeling like a lot of other people will say that if you start education this early there will be less problems down the road. They will be better learners and have less discipline problems imo.

My only point is that history has shown otherwise. Back in the 60's (when my hubby was preschool age), there was no preschool to any extent (I think this was when the Head Start programs were in infancy). Preschool was an invention of two income families, since group day care was inferior to the care received at home. Preschool programs bridged that gap between the learning opportunities of the home and the "safe place for your child" of a group day care situation.

But look at what has happened. Parental involvement has gone down, and discipline problems and Ritalin use have gone up. Children get labeled a lot quicker, and it affects how they see themselves, so the self defeating attitude starts even earlier.

My opinion is that preschool will stunt children's emotional, social, and academic growth, and there is evidence out there to support that hypothesis. The knee-jerk reaction - and I'll admit to feeling this way when my eldest was a baby - is that more school is better, but the more I see, both in preschools and out, the more I'm convinced otherwise.

But yes, we agree to disagree.

There are good arguments for both sides of when to start education. I believe it is important to start as soon as possible.

I also feel that if this early education is provided by the parents it provides a much stronger bond between parent and student which can then be enhanced as the student progresses.

I have seen many families eager to send their kids off to day care "so they don't have to deal with them any more."

That statement shows a lot, and while it may be an off handed statement, it goes to the core of the problem, using school as daycare.

But you make the important distinction - education versus schooling. Education is a much broader term, and I think it naturally starts at birth. Does a child need to be taught how to speak? No, you just speak to him! Parents who are fortunate enough to stay home with their kids see those "moments" when a child is absorbing something extraordinary, and they're able to pounce on it. But they're also able to let the child do his own exploring. Think about the conversations between a parent and child. How much does a child learn just from the questions he asks? However, those questions won't get answered as readily if there's no one to ask. And in a typical preschool room with, say, an 1:8 teacher/child ratio, you can bet that endless questions aren't going to get answered in a preschool room.

It saddens me that parents send their kids off to preschool/day care just to get them out of their hair. Those parents are missing out on the opportunity of a lifetime, and they won't get it back. But I also think that the more we push early separation of children from their parents, the more commonplace that attitude will become. Parents may push that preschool attitude, but the preschool will also incubate that very attitude in parents who might have otherwise stayed home to enjoy their kids, because it's an easier, albeit less rewarding, choice.

Welcome to my world of early childhood education! I am delighted to see so many of you on this topic, both parents and future teachers. Just a reminder to you who have career plans in this area. We need you, as the nation will face a 2 million shortage of teachers in the coming decade according to predictions by the National Teachers Association. Expect to spend five years in college to earn a teaching credential and continued training throughout your career.

For those of you interested in MY school district's kindergarten curriculum, I have posted the link below. (Click "Stairway" in the left column for grade levels.)

http://www.oxnardsd.org/webumake/ESC/curriculum/

Curriculum, Assessment & Instruction

Kindergarten Stairway and Grade Level Resources

(All publications linked on the page are copyrighted.)

KT

We can all agree that babies learn well before they can talk or even get to be potty trained, right???

it would be nice for the parents to stay with the kids for as long as possible, BUTTT we have to educate them at some point. I think preschool education is a great starting point on the way to creating highschool grads.

I do not think we are pushing them away to soon by sending them off to preschool.