Starting in the late 1940s, most public school systems in the U.S. included the kindergarten program as a part of their regular 12-year sequence. Kindergarten (translation: a child’s garden) was intended to build certain skills that would better prepare children to function as group members. In the early 1960s, the Ford Foundation developed programs to serve pre-kindergarten children who resided in low-income urban areas. They were designed to enhance nurturing activities that would put them on even footing with their pre-kindergarten peers. Initially, this effort only included the summer session that preceded the kindergarten year. One of the programs became know as Head Start.
Since that time, preschool programs have expanded with new vigor by providing more children with more services at younger and younger years. The ultimate goal seems to be a system of universal child care starting at birth for all children. Thousands of expensive TV ads are aired each year promoting early childhood education benefits. Certainly the trend is “in place” and definitely popular. Certainly the bulk of “professionals” who work and administer these programs are nurturing and want the best for children. Certainly, parents with economic pressures find “free” child care necessary, if not vital. And finally, our legislators are more than happy to carry a banner for mandatory child care expansion, so positioned to “save the day” with feel-good legislation.
An interesting experiment at Stanford University in the 1930s sought to determine the correct age for starting school. It was proposed that age 8 was the correct time of reasonable maturity of mind and body (barring any disabling conditions). The children were divided into two groups. One group started school at age 6 and the other group was kept at home until age 8. As might be expected, the age-8 group was well behind the age-6 group in a number of criteria. Yet the hypothesis was proved, when the age-8 group caught up to the other group in less than five months … and lived happily ever after.
I’m not arguing against enrichment activities for very young children, but to focus attention on who should be providing them. Certainly the dedicated people working in the pre-kinder arena are worthy of high praise. Despite such competence, Mom can still do it better. There is no job more important to the success of a society! The often unheralded job of nurturing the young needs to be highly valued and elevated to the lofty status it deserves.
Some have argued that preschool programs are an example of parents shucking their responsibilities. This is not however how parents would look at it. Perhaps they are being seduced into surrendering controls? After all, the preschool programs are free, they are staffed by great people, they provide a parent with more free time to work or play, and may provide more opportunities than at home.
Parents, of course, want the best for their children, but may be surrendering rights that they should be retaining. Where does it stop? How much control and authority should be given up to government-operated child-care programs? It would be an easy decision if the programs were not attractive, but they are. The agencies point to negative early nurturing that perpetuates itself into future generations and that early programs help to break that cycle and produce more mainstream results.
Yet the bottom line is – Mom is best and no agency can hope to improve on that caring and loving relationship. Classroom teachers know that praising good performance gets more of the same. They know that nothing succeeds like success. Why not do the same for mom? It’s unlikely she will be paid for her preschool efforts, but it is possible to appreciate and acknowledge the most important job on the planet.
As with most things, it’s a matter of degree rather than kind. On that note, a school board member recently quipped: “Given the ever-increasing involvement of agencies in the preschool area and the given the every lowering of targeted ages, we might just have a heated agenda item dealing with a protracted dispute. Who has the authority to name the child … the agency or the parent?
Morgan Hill resident Donald R. Kruse is a retired teacher and school administrator with more than 30 years of experience. He served as a member of the Santa Clara County Board of Education for one four-year term from 2002 to 2005. He also served for six years as a U.S. Navy officer. He’s a member of the Morgan Hill Times Editorial Board. Reach him at
do******@sb*******.net
.
