Step 1: Early Childhood Education- The Sooner The Better
Courtesy of ZauiAll educational reform of the past twenty years has been teacher and student driven. A logical path, considering the paramount roles these two groups play in educational success. Better teachers + more engaged students = enhanced student achievement. Simple. Right? Actually, this system of reform falls sadly short of its intended purpose, systematically speaking, because it demeans the very thing individual schools attempt to promote in both teachers and students- innovation, creativity, autonomy, critical thinking, etc. As John Taylor Gatto has lamented, along with many others, this institutionalized, pigeon-holed, one size fits all model of public education is, as previously stated, an absolute failure, but there are those who still refuse to accept it.
Now don’t let the advocates fool you. They’ll argue persuasively with data-driven, research-based methods of reform with catchy names and acronyms. They’ll campaign a new book or two, written by the most current and popular educational researcher. However, what they will not tell you is that all of these methods and systems and techniques are all born out of the same philosophy of expediency and simplicity. The concept is to institute the simplest of solutions to benefit the largest of populations. Moreover, these same advocates will testify to the success of such strategies by flashing numbers of tremendous growth in reading and mathematics, if not in their own school than one relatively similar to it 500 miles a way.
The truth is though, these gains that have been made in basic reading and mathematical proficiency, primarily as a result of teachers working harder, not better, lack any meaningful, comprehensive value. So then, the time has come to accept that the old way, which has seemingly changed so dramatically, has not worked, can’t work, and never will work. Therefore, it is time to lobby to change the system and how it works rather than who works it. Rest assured I’m not promoting these systematic reforms for all schools and communities, but instead for the schools and communities that need them, want them, and/or are willing to actually implement them.
The first idea, early childhood education, is the notion of taking students, ages 2-5, and placing them in a more formal and structured learning environment. This concept currently exists throughout the entire country in the form of Pre-school; however, it is often privatized and operated independent of the school districts themselves. Also, the current function of our Pre-school system in America is flawed in a number of respects. There is a common sentiment amongst many today that schools are failing because of student apathy and that student apathy is due to a lack of parental involvement. There is unquestionably truth to this, and if we eliminate the politics of race, economics, and geography, and simply accept that many parents are in fact incapable or unwilling to support their children, then as a school system, we can move forward to rectifying this problem. Therefore, it makes sense to encourage, if not mandate, more children to be enrolled in a more legitimate, professional, certified schooling system at a younger age when their minds and brains are developing so aggressively and rapidly.
It is a fairly well-known scientific fact that a child’s brain and mind are far more impressionable than an adult’s, especially during much younger years. The physical brain itself grows to about 80% of its adult size by age 3 and 90% by age 5. During these stages of growth and development, the brain is often referred to by neuroscientists as “plastic”. These same scientists have concluded, if not through scientific data than simply common sense, that the plasticity of the child’s brain has both a positive and a negative side, depending on the environment. In a strong, nurturing environment, the child’s brain develops healthfully and becomes more open to learning. In a more malnourished and impoverished environment, the child’s brain becomes more vulnerable to developmental problems. Obviously there are exceptions to both sides of this development, but for the most part, very young, impressionable, developing children are better off in a more structured, well-educated, creative, and encouraging environment than not. Unfortunately, as previously noted, not all children are born into such a world and not all parents have the means to grant them access to it.
Now, although Pre-school programs provide some sanctuary from the debilitating impact of an impoverished home, and may even provide some limited educational direction, the truth is most are not equipped to properly care, foster, and direct young children in the manner that they need at such an essential developmental stage. Many Pre-schools are operated by a supervising adult and run by non-college educated, sometimes high school-aged employees, with little to no required training or understanding of child development. It stands to reason that in more impoverished areas, the Pre-schools are more dysfunctional, and that in more affluent areas, the Pre-schools are more capable, much like our current model of public education. However, whether poor or wealthy, the public system, with accredited, college educated professionals, are far better equipped to teach these children than our current system of Pre-school. Therefore, these same Pre-schools must be taken over and operated by the same public school system that will receive these children often too late, when severe damage has already been done.
Imagine the difference a trained, well-educated teacher, who knows the inner-workings of child development and brain maturation, could have on a child who comes from a home (natural, foster, or adoptive) that is incapable of providing the necessary didactic nurturing a child needs to eventually ingratiate himself/herself into a world of formal education. Imagine the impact an established, certified professional could have in identifying developmental problems sooner than age six, seven, or seventeen. Imagine the redirection of public education if instead of waiting until the permanent damage has been done as the result of six years of a dysfunctional environment, the system stepped in sooner and began teaching at arguably the most important of stages. However, the first step is for short-sighted politicians, educators, and communities/parents to do exactly that, imagine, much like a well-loved and nurtured child.
All idealism aside, I understand this concept has flaws, not the least of which is the idea that many parents would be reluctant to hand their children over to the school system at such a young age. However, the reality is they already do, unfortunately to people far less qualified to instruct these children. The truth is that the greater obstacle for implementing such a radical change to our educational system, as always, is money, which is something I’ll be addressing later.
Patrick Edmonds
In the last issue of Time Magazine, political commentator and essayist Joe Klien, whom I rarely agree with, argued to have the Pre-School program Head Start "axed". Head Start is a hallmark of the liberal democratic contingency for it supports the underpriveleged by providing them access to Pre-school programs at essentially no cost.
Klein does not oppose the sentiments of the program, merely its structure and capacity for success in its current form. At one point in the article, Klein raises the same question I am raising, writing, "Why is Head Start an HHS program and not run by the Department of Education?"
As I argued, programs like Head Start, which cost $7 Billion a year according to the article, could be more effective if they were controlled by the federal, state, and local education departments and the students were actually taught by professional, accredited teachers.
Read more below:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2081778,00.html
http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/13/more-on-head-start-2/
Reader Comments (1)