Down With UP

Are children raised in poverty better off being institutionalized as one reader suggests? You decide...

I must tell you that I was a bit disappointed upon reading the overview of your website on your home page. What a negative twist you put on public institutions implementing preschool programs.

Did you take into consideration the vast number of children under the age of 5 being raised in poverty situations, single parent dwellings, drug or alcohol addicted parents, in the foster care system, etc, etc,? Unfortunately for these children preschool and their preschool teacher offers the only stability and structure in their lives. It isn't necessarily due to larger entities wanting to "make a profit".

I found it even more hypocritical of your site to print the following statement: "These misguided preschool proponents encourage unproven methods of instruction that cause undue stress in young children leading to learning and behavioral problems." Upon delving a little further into your website and links, I found that you are promoting developmentally inappropriate activities for parents to use with their preschool children.

Perhaps you might take a step back, do a bit more research and rethink the message your website is promoting.

Shelli L.

Dear Shelli,

I must tell you that I am deeply offended by your comments regarding the well-researched efforts of some of the best qualified and highly motivated advocates of preschoolers. Let's take a look at your comments, one by one, shall we?

"I must tell you that I was a bit disappointed upon reading the overview of your website on your home page. What a negative twist you put on public institutions implementing preschool programs."

"Public institutions"; now that just about says it all. You must not have any children, because if you did, would you really want them institutionalized? As for "public". If you have been following the progress of our "public" schools, you would realize the horrible trend that has been set already. There are many fine private preschools for the children of parents who need them. These will no longer be affordable, once free public preschools (read "day care") are firmly in place.

That is when choice goes out the window. As for quality, public programs don't have a stake in the outcome, once there are no more choices (as in "private preschool options"), there is no motivation for public school institutions to strive to do better. This promotes a steady downhill spiral, as we are already seeing in our public schools today.

"Did you take into consideration the vast number of children under the age of 5 being raised in poverty situations, single parent dwellings, drug or alcohol addicted parents, in the foster care system, etc, etc,?"

Are you saying that because my parents were poor and my father was an alcoholic that I would have been better off spending my days in a public institution? Being poor doesn't mean you lock a child up and throw away the key. My mother never put any of her children into daycare, we had a rough time, but we learned to play together with what we had available. It gave us an opportunity to use our imaginations. No, life wasn't easy for us, but I certainly don't believe daycare or preschool would have made my life any better.

As an adult, when my own child was five, we were homeless for about a year. We still managed to care just fine for him. Was life easy? No. But just because things get difficult doesn't mean a parent is incapable of caring for and making the best decisions for their own child.

"Unfortunately for these children preschool and their preschool teacher offers the only stability and structure in their lives."

This is just plain ridiculous. I had plenty of structure in my life and so did my own son. Poverty isn't illegal! It's not a disease: It is merely a financial state that some find more important than others. I guess according to you, if a parent is poor, loses their job or home, they are no longer qualified to be a parent? What planet are you on? Look around and wake up. People have been poor from the beginning of time, it doesn't make them ignorant or incompetent.

"It isn't necessarily due to larger entities wanting to "make a profit"."

Why exactly do you think public schools are trying to expand? Watch the news - they are closing more and more schools, because parents are finding other alternatives. The public schools are the worst. If they don't manage to pull in the preschool crowd, even more schools will soon close their doors. My question to you is, why should we trust the public school system with our preschoolers, when it has failed in every other arena where it operates? Isn't it enough that Johnny can't read, so now Johnny's little sister Suzie shouldn't be taught to read either?

"I found it even more hypocritical of your site to print the following statement: "These misguided preschool proponents encourage unproven methods of instruction that cause undue stress in young children leading to learning and behavioral problems.""

Apparently, you haven't done your homework. Try reading the research, it's posted on this site as well.

"Upon delving a little further into your website and links, I found that you are promoting developmentally inappropriate activities for parents to use with their preschool children."

Since you weren't kind enough to provide any actual details, I have no further comments to offer.

I recommend that you read the actual research documents available on UniversalPreschool.com and various other websites. Be sure to check the researchers' methodology and don't forget to glance at who is actually footing the bill for the research. Many times that is what gamblers like to call a "tell." Then get back with me, if you have some intelligent comments to make.

Thank you for your comments.

Regards,

~Annette M. Hall
Public Liaison for the abolishment
of all Universal Preschool Programs

Labels: behavioral problems, daycare, poverty, pre-k, preschool, private

In May, 2007 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released guidelines advising all pediatricians to tell parents not to let their babies watch TV. Apparently, on any given day in America, 68% of infants (ages 0-2) watch television - and 20% watch TV in their own bedrooms! Their parents' education, ethinicity and level of income did not make a difference.

In a blog by Dr. Thomas Armstrong, author of The Myth of ADD and the newly released, The Human Odyssey, he states that only 6% of the parents of children from ages 0-2 were aware of the guideline to turn off the TV. Armstrong makes the case to get the message out -- so more parents can protect their babies from the damage caused by watching television. Here are some excerpts from Armstrong's blog:

Here's the problem... The baby's brain is a veritable thicket of dendrites or brain connections that are strengthened or weakened depending in part upon what kinds of environmental stimuli she receives. ...the most important thing for her wellbeing and survival is that she spend a lot of time interacting with the real world, not watching a fake world.

Television, for all it is cracked up to be by media people and educators who should know better (e.g. "it can be very educational" they claim), does not have visual richness (it's made up of pixels, not real substances), nor does it have auditory richness (infants are particularly sensitive to the hum of electronics, and digital music is no replacement for live music), and of course, importantly, there are no opportunities for hands-on interaction (a joy stick for baby is no substitute for baby's tactile and kinesthetic curiosity about the world), and above all, there is no human contact in watching TV.

...This is not a good thing for baby, nor is it good for society...

You wouldn't leave them out on a busy highway. You wouldn't leave them in a room with a rabid pit bull. You wouldn't leave them in a room with medicine bottles and electric sockets laying around. So, don't let them watch TV. TV is the electronic equivalent of all of these other things, only instead of inflicting physical damage, the damage is subtle cognitive, emotional, social, neurological corrosion that may not even be apparent until years later. ...

I took the liberty of cutting and pasting some of the Guidelines from the AAP. Please pass this information along to anyone who will listen. Tell them not to let their babies watch TV:

• Discourage television viewing for children younger than 2 years, and encourage more interactive activities that will promote proper brain development, such as talking, playing, singing, and reading together.
• Remove television sets from children's bedrooms.
• Limit children's total media time (with entertainment media) to no more than 1 to 2 hours of quality programming per day.
• Monitor the shows children and adolescents are viewing. Most programs should be informational, educational, and nonviolent.
• View television programs along with children, and discuss the content. Two recent surveys involving a total of nearly 1500 parents found that less than half of parents reported always watching television with their children.
• Use controversial programming as a stepping-off point to initiate discussions about family values, violence, sex and sexuality, and drugs.
• Use the VCR or DVD player wisely to show or record high-quality, educational programming for children.
• Encourage alternative entertainment for children, including reading, athletics, hobbies, and creative play.

Labels: Armstrong, parents, preschool, television