This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 20 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ritafrickelton.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 June 2019 and 31 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kt rogers.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The previously existing content has been moved to Sangford Schools. Please do not overwrite redirects in future without a good reason. This content did not belong here. If it was an honest mistake then don't worry as it is fixed now. Regards, Colin MacLaurin 12:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is oddly isolated from the Early Childhood Education, Day Care, and Nursery School articles. I got to it by starting at Nursery School (from the body of the Sesame Street article when it was the featured article), to Reggio Emilia (which my daughter's preschool is part of), to Preschool Education.
Seems that maybe rather than merging Nursery School and Day Care articles (currently under vote), it makes more sense to merge Nursery School with Preschool Education. At least have them both linked in to the Early Childhood Education article.
-- 71.111.151.138 07:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
preschool is education for children aged between approx 2 and 6 depending on area. It is not child care it is structured education which preceded formal schooling i.e. primary 1, grade 1, preparatory, reception whatever you call it. Nursery or nursery school is encompased within the banner of pre-school education thus does not succeed it. -- Brideshead 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The links for the areas listed are both broken. 104.238.32.93 ( talk) 18:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking it over once again, the introduction of this section seems to have very little to do with "Developmental Areas" and more to do with misleadingly interpreting research strongly in favor of preschool education. I would like a more experienced user to at least consider removing or cleaning up this introduction. The first source (Scottish Government) clearly states that the home environment is more important than preschool or elementary school (citing the OECD). The next two sources are basically advocacy groups trying to institute the "Perry Preschool" method nationwide (U.S.). Again I would appreciate if this section was brought up to encyclopedic standards. 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm new to this editing thing, and a liberal slant seems to be de rigueur on Wikipedia, but is the National Association of Child Advocates really a reliable source? Clearly their "research" is geared toward getting more funding (and jobs) for preschool education. I think the beginning of this section is too strongly worded in favor of the benefits of preschool, or at least needs to cite another source besides an advocacy group. I further examined the source research and it stated that " 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)The study found that the home environment and the relationship between mother and child seem to have the greatest influence on children's outcomes" I believe this should be included somehow if we are going to have an honest presentation of the subject. Even the most favorable research clearly states that the home environment is far more important than preschool. 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I further checked the second link, to "American Radio Works" which was an informal article about "Perry Preschool." This is clearly not a source up to encyclopedic standards, especially one that "is important" to Wikipedia's mission. I didn't drop it because I know I would get overruled but I believe that someone with more experience on these matters should clean this section up. Is Wikipedia an online encyclopedia or is it a way for left wing advocacy groups to disseminate information as fact. Saying preschool improves outcomes is fine, but it should accurately portray the cited research, and the citations should be up to Wikipedia standards, that is all I ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Once again, I checked the first source, and a direct quote from that source "The recent OECD review of quality and equity of schooling highlights the huge influence of social circumstances on educational attainment in Scotland. Other UK research highlights that the home learning environment in the early years is the largest factor in attainment and achievement at age 10, bigger even than the effect of pre-school and primary school." If anything, this source seems to be undermining the importance of preschool. I suggest that someone with editing experience makes this section more honest. The other two sources are advocating the "Perry Preschool" method and this whole section is leaning toward outright partisan advocacy rather than neutral analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Where have these 3 areas come from? What about aesthetic development, what about Knowledge and understanding of the world? If these are some kind of overiding influential areas accepted by the wider academic community then they will have to be sourced. As it stands they are worthless. -- Brideshead 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Your rude acerbic comment notwithstanding, American English (sic) is appropriate to the article in general as that was the original format in which the article was written. In Australia, the term is Child Care Centres, Australian English. We know how to spell perfectly well you... -- Brideshead 09:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss at Talk:Nursery school#Merge with preschool education. BigNate37 (T) 19:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is no reason the article should be separate. They are synonyms only divided by cultural use of the terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cclehnen ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good preschool education resource. [1]
The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.
The preschool education / child care page of the site offers a wealth of early childhood education and preschool resource such as articles, research and practical advice for parents and professionals. These websites provide cost/benefit analyses and information on evaluating early childhood programs, information about child care, the transition to kindergarten and much more.
-- Teamme 15:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this section could use some citations from the works of Piaget, Vygotsky, or Erikson (among others) to make it sound more scholarly. Thoughts? Beatles970 ( talk) 08:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed this piece of widely held and valid opinion that was added today, as in the current form it is not (in my opinion) in an encyclopedic tone, not verifiable.
I hope the new user who wrote it is persistent, and discovers the type of article we are aiming for at Wikipedia.
-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed a section on abilities. it was made up of complete rubbish, unsourced nonsence with vague statements about what "they" like to do. i.e dance in pants It has been tagged unsourced from early 2007. -- Brideshead ( talk) 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The section on Special Education was too scholarly. It has terms which would not make sense to an average reader, and it doesn't have to be that way for this topic. Trying to use a source from a Department of Education from one state in the United States was part of the problem. I wrote a different section, but it's not perfect. Please give feedback. Academic Challenger ( talk) 10:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Preschool does NOT include kindergarten, at least not in American English. 76.219.170.8 ( talk) 22:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I am loosing the thread of this conversation now, but some further information from me:
-- Boy.pockets ( talk) 02:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
See new thread below -- Boy.pockets ( talk) 05:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
First, good work; for a thread that has lasted so long, the discussion has been pretty good. I have been looking further into the two articles ( Kindergarten and Preschool education), but I am not convinced that we will be able to do much good without looking at the related articles at the same time. So I guess I am saying, that whatever the outcome of the merge discussion (merge, or no merge), there should be a general tidy up of the early childhood education articles. Important articles to clean up (IMO & in no particular order):
In the process of doing this, I think it will help with the merge debate. It would be nice to get some help on this. Some first steps would be to make some draft a synopsis for each of these articles. Not really sure how to go about all this. Perhaps some people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Education?
-- Boy.pockets ( talk) 05:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The appropriate sections of the Kindergarten article should be merged into the Elementary School article because, in certain countries, the compulsory curriculum of Elementary School education begins in Kindergarten. The word Kindergarten already appears 6 times in that article and K-12 appears twice. Of course, the devil is in the details most of which I don't know. But I do know that Kindergarten is not Preschool here in Northwest Arkansas. Our Kindergartners must demonstrate the required proficiency levels to move into First Grade. Yes! You can fail Kindergarten.
Those sections that are truly Preschool should be merged into Preschool. The sections which describe its history and evolution would remain in the Kindergarten article.
-- unsigned comment
I suggest the article Pre-kindergarten be merged with this one, as it covers almost exactly the same material but seems to be a relatively orphaned article otherwise. fat man rolling ( talk) 11:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Completely unnecessary to the subject. If I'm not mistaken, the relevance of a certain south park episode is completely pointless in the scope of this article and should be removed as a redirect on the top of the page. It's almost insulting to Wikipedia's articulacy to even suggest an episode to a pop phenomenon in an article like this.-- 71.196.232.231 ( talk) 05:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The mess lives on. I'd love feedback on organizing things in a way that respects national differences and separates educational matters, which remain under heavy dispute, at least in the US, from other aspects. Articles that cover the same subject should be merged. Thus:
Welcome your thoughts. Cheers.
-- Lfstevens ( talk) 04:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20121216013855/http://www.themontessorischoolrochester.com/dr-maria-montessori.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The China section seems to have serious NPOV issues. In only the second sentence, they're bashing preschool as "some are showpieces designed to impress foreign visitors," and the contrasting point is that the remaining preschools "have very limited resources."
The next paragraph has major issues too: "Because of China's one-child policy, most students have no siblings and are seen as lonely, selfish and prone to anti-social behavior." This lacks a source and seems like a massively broad generalization, on the way towards racism. These sentences also seem very broad, but lacking in support: "Children are taught to form an orderly, regimented collective that is obedient to its leader. Children eat meals silently and sit quietly for long periods of time during the school day while the teacher instructs or reads to them. Group dynamics are authoritarian, with the relationship between the teacher and the children more important than the relationships between the children."
I'd like to at the very least tag with {{ POV-section}} until this is resolved.
Jeff Wheeler ( talk) 23:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The Japan section has some neutrality problems. I don't doubt that some or all of what's written may be true, but the following problems need to be addressed:
-- Bigpeteb ( talk) 22:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
While we all know about the negative reputation of the North Korean state, is it really necessary to add that one-sentence part on North Korea? It damages the neutrality and the overall tone of the article and is inconsistent as a in-depth unbiased discussion about North Korea's preschool system is expected highlighting its deficiencies and strengths.
If there is nothing good and relevant to talk about the North Korean preschool system on this article maybe it should just be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.30.8 ( talk) 11:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 20 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ritafrickelton.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 June 2019 and 31 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kt rogers.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The previously existing content has been moved to Sangford Schools. Please do not overwrite redirects in future without a good reason. This content did not belong here. If it was an honest mistake then don't worry as it is fixed now. Regards, Colin MacLaurin 12:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is oddly isolated from the Early Childhood Education, Day Care, and Nursery School articles. I got to it by starting at Nursery School (from the body of the Sesame Street article when it was the featured article), to Reggio Emilia (which my daughter's preschool is part of), to Preschool Education.
Seems that maybe rather than merging Nursery School and Day Care articles (currently under vote), it makes more sense to merge Nursery School with Preschool Education. At least have them both linked in to the Early Childhood Education article.
-- 71.111.151.138 07:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
preschool is education for children aged between approx 2 and 6 depending on area. It is not child care it is structured education which preceded formal schooling i.e. primary 1, grade 1, preparatory, reception whatever you call it. Nursery or nursery school is encompased within the banner of pre-school education thus does not succeed it. -- Brideshead 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The links for the areas listed are both broken. 104.238.32.93 ( talk) 18:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking it over once again, the introduction of this section seems to have very little to do with "Developmental Areas" and more to do with misleadingly interpreting research strongly in favor of preschool education. I would like a more experienced user to at least consider removing or cleaning up this introduction. The first source (Scottish Government) clearly states that the home environment is more important than preschool or elementary school (citing the OECD). The next two sources are basically advocacy groups trying to institute the "Perry Preschool" method nationwide (U.S.). Again I would appreciate if this section was brought up to encyclopedic standards. 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm new to this editing thing, and a liberal slant seems to be de rigueur on Wikipedia, but is the National Association of Child Advocates really a reliable source? Clearly their "research" is geared toward getting more funding (and jobs) for preschool education. I think the beginning of this section is too strongly worded in favor of the benefits of preschool, or at least needs to cite another source besides an advocacy group. I further examined the source research and it stated that " 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)The study found that the home environment and the relationship between mother and child seem to have the greatest influence on children's outcomes" I believe this should be included somehow if we are going to have an honest presentation of the subject. Even the most favorable research clearly states that the home environment is far more important than preschool. 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I further checked the second link, to "American Radio Works" which was an informal article about "Perry Preschool." This is clearly not a source up to encyclopedic standards, especially one that "is important" to Wikipedia's mission. I didn't drop it because I know I would get overruled but I believe that someone with more experience on these matters should clean this section up. Is Wikipedia an online encyclopedia or is it a way for left wing advocacy groups to disseminate information as fact. Saying preschool improves outcomes is fine, but it should accurately portray the cited research, and the citations should be up to Wikipedia standards, that is all I ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Once again, I checked the first source, and a direct quote from that source "The recent OECD review of quality and equity of schooling highlights the huge influence of social circumstances on educational attainment in Scotland. Other UK research highlights that the home learning environment in the early years is the largest factor in attainment and achievement at age 10, bigger even than the effect of pre-school and primary school." If anything, this source seems to be undermining the importance of preschool. I suggest that someone with editing experience makes this section more honest. The other two sources are advocating the "Perry Preschool" method and this whole section is leaning toward outright partisan advocacy rather than neutral analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Where have these 3 areas come from? What about aesthetic development, what about Knowledge and understanding of the world? If these are some kind of overiding influential areas accepted by the wider academic community then they will have to be sourced. As it stands they are worthless. -- Brideshead 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Your rude acerbic comment notwithstanding, American English (sic) is appropriate to the article in general as that was the original format in which the article was written. In Australia, the term is Child Care Centres, Australian English. We know how to spell perfectly well you... -- Brideshead 09:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss at Talk:Nursery school#Merge with preschool education. BigNate37 (T) 19:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is no reason the article should be separate. They are synonyms only divided by cultural use of the terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cclehnen ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good preschool education resource. [1]
The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.
The preschool education / child care page of the site offers a wealth of early childhood education and preschool resource such as articles, research and practical advice for parents and professionals. These websites provide cost/benefit analyses and information on evaluating early childhood programs, information about child care, the transition to kindergarten and much more.
-- Teamme 15:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this section could use some citations from the works of Piaget, Vygotsky, or Erikson (among others) to make it sound more scholarly. Thoughts? Beatles970 ( talk) 08:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed this piece of widely held and valid opinion that was added today, as in the current form it is not (in my opinion) in an encyclopedic tone, not verifiable.
I hope the new user who wrote it is persistent, and discovers the type of article we are aiming for at Wikipedia.
-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed a section on abilities. it was made up of complete rubbish, unsourced nonsence with vague statements about what "they" like to do. i.e dance in pants It has been tagged unsourced from early 2007. -- Brideshead ( talk) 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The section on Special Education was too scholarly. It has terms which would not make sense to an average reader, and it doesn't have to be that way for this topic. Trying to use a source from a Department of Education from one state in the United States was part of the problem. I wrote a different section, but it's not perfect. Please give feedback. Academic Challenger ( talk) 10:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Preschool does NOT include kindergarten, at least not in American English. 76.219.170.8 ( talk) 22:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I am loosing the thread of this conversation now, but some further information from me:
-- Boy.pockets ( talk) 02:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
See new thread below -- Boy.pockets ( talk) 05:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
First, good work; for a thread that has lasted so long, the discussion has been pretty good. I have been looking further into the two articles ( Kindergarten and Preschool education), but I am not convinced that we will be able to do much good without looking at the related articles at the same time. So I guess I am saying, that whatever the outcome of the merge discussion (merge, or no merge), there should be a general tidy up of the early childhood education articles. Important articles to clean up (IMO & in no particular order):
In the process of doing this, I think it will help with the merge debate. It would be nice to get some help on this. Some first steps would be to make some draft a synopsis for each of these articles. Not really sure how to go about all this. Perhaps some people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Education?
-- Boy.pockets ( talk) 05:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The appropriate sections of the Kindergarten article should be merged into the Elementary School article because, in certain countries, the compulsory curriculum of Elementary School education begins in Kindergarten. The word Kindergarten already appears 6 times in that article and K-12 appears twice. Of course, the devil is in the details most of which I don't know. But I do know that Kindergarten is not Preschool here in Northwest Arkansas. Our Kindergartners must demonstrate the required proficiency levels to move into First Grade. Yes! You can fail Kindergarten.
Those sections that are truly Preschool should be merged into Preschool. The sections which describe its history and evolution would remain in the Kindergarten article.
-- unsigned comment
I suggest the article Pre-kindergarten be merged with this one, as it covers almost exactly the same material but seems to be a relatively orphaned article otherwise. fat man rolling ( talk) 11:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Completely unnecessary to the subject. If I'm not mistaken, the relevance of a certain south park episode is completely pointless in the scope of this article and should be removed as a redirect on the top of the page. It's almost insulting to Wikipedia's articulacy to even suggest an episode to a pop phenomenon in an article like this.-- 71.196.232.231 ( talk) 05:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The mess lives on. I'd love feedback on organizing things in a way that respects national differences and separates educational matters, which remain under heavy dispute, at least in the US, from other aspects. Articles that cover the same subject should be merged. Thus:
Welcome your thoughts. Cheers.
-- Lfstevens ( talk) 04:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20121216013855/http://www.themontessorischoolrochester.com/dr-maria-montessori.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The China section seems to have serious NPOV issues. In only the second sentence, they're bashing preschool as "some are showpieces designed to impress foreign visitors," and the contrasting point is that the remaining preschools "have very limited resources."
The next paragraph has major issues too: "Because of China's one-child policy, most students have no siblings and are seen as lonely, selfish and prone to anti-social behavior." This lacks a source and seems like a massively broad generalization, on the way towards racism. These sentences also seem very broad, but lacking in support: "Children are taught to form an orderly, regimented collective that is obedient to its leader. Children eat meals silently and sit quietly for long periods of time during the school day while the teacher instructs or reads to them. Group dynamics are authoritarian, with the relationship between the teacher and the children more important than the relationships between the children."
I'd like to at the very least tag with {{ POV-section}} until this is resolved.
Jeff Wheeler ( talk) 23:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The Japan section has some neutrality problems. I don't doubt that some or all of what's written may be true, but the following problems need to be addressed:
-- Bigpeteb ( talk) 22:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
While we all know about the negative reputation of the North Korean state, is it really necessary to add that one-sentence part on North Korea? It damages the neutrality and the overall tone of the article and is inconsistent as a in-depth unbiased discussion about North Korea's preschool system is expected highlighting its deficiencies and strengths.
If there is nothing good and relevant to talk about the North Korean preschool system on this article maybe it should just be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.30.8 ( talk) 11:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)