Originally Posted by nannyde:
Your whole post is a mine field of misinformation and assumptions.
First: A barely new three year old shouldn't HAVE a diagnosis of ADHD. He's way way way too young to give him a diagnosis like that that would qualify him under the disabiilty act you are referring to by saying the Center could be sued or fined.
At his young age it is OKAY to keep him with two year olds. Only in THIS generation of parents have we had a notion that there's an "age difference" between a two and three year old. Since the begining of time children have played together and grown up together with significantly greater age and developmental differences. It's okay for him to play with one year olds or five year olds. It doesn't matter.
The dividing kids under five up by age year is not because of developmental reasons but mostly for MONEY. Centers are allowed a higher child to adult ratio with each advancing age group. The more kids per adult the more money. In real life these kids can easily play with kids within two to three years of each other either way. It's not a sacrifice to this child to play with kids who are a year younger than him. The whole idea of that is rediculous and a product of our silly notion that kids under five need an "education".
At his age he needs good food, good sleep, good supervision, good toys, and some kids to hang out with. He doesn't need an academic program. He needs to have his behavior dealt with and his self help skills focused on. If they can offer that in the two room at a higher adult to child ratio it's in everybodys best interest to keep him with the younger kids so what's REALLY important will be worked on.
We need to stop interjecting little tiny kids "educational needs" into child care. We are robbing them of their younger years by muddling it up with stuff that won't matter a lick once they are in school. If this child has a full preschool program from now until he's five he won't stand one iota of chance of having a better long term outcome than a child who didn't have a minute of school before he is five. There's NO educational or social outcomes that are measurable that are wrought from a full academic program in early childhood. There isn't a stitch of research that will offer that kids who have had school before the age of five do better in ANY measurable way. They don't graduate at a higher rate, they don't score better on any standardized testing, they don't have less teen pregnancy, they don't get better grades, they don't have less expulsions, they don't make any more money as adults and on and on.
So standing on the premise that we have to DO now to protect his future is not backed up in any way with longitudinal research. Only POOR children from very deprived environments fare better with early intervention and that is soley because they are PHYSICALLY removed from that environment during a significant portion of their waking time.. NOT because the EDUCATION makes any difference.
You said: As a high school teacher, try as I might, some students are no longer "reachable" at their level and emotional state.
If you were pulled into your principals office and given the names of 100 of your students who you had taught all year long and told that thirty of them had a full preschool program between the ages of two and five and you were tasked to pick out those 30 kids based on what you know of them over the course of a full year of high school... you wouldn't be able to pick them out if your career depended on it. There's NOTHING they come to you with in the high school years that is a direct result of a full academic program in early childhood.
The "value" of child care is in the CARE of the kids for their most fundamental needs: food, sleep, supervision, having approriate materials, discipline, and of course a tender loving adult.
Are you kidding me?? Before you go spouting off that there is no research to date on the educational benefits of a preschool program, do a little homework.
http://www.cds.unc.edu/CCHD/F2004/09...bell.et.al.pdf