Get Schooled

By Rosemarie

January 23, 2008 7:24 AM | Link to this

Public school for 3 year olds is insane. I have raised 4 children to adulthood (well, the youngest is almost 17). Children that age need a stable, happy environment where they have plenty of opportunity to explore and interact with their parents. A 3-year old has many questions about simple things that need answering. Don’t put them in an environment that is so structured and stifled that they don’t have one-on-one natural mothering and instruction.

By MBA MaMa

January 23, 2008 7:39 AM | Link to this

A and Men!! The current Pre-K program is sorely lacking. Put the money there to give these kids a fresh start.

By lucky

January 23, 2008 7:52 AM | Link to this

3 years is too young, it is only traumatic to a child who needs their mother more than a teacher. I put my son in a church preschool 3 mornings a week at 3 years and took him out shortly thereafter. Although it was nice to be able to go to the store or accomplish some things while he was at “school”, he only sat under the table and cried. Lets use that lotto money on something like scholarships for nursing, teaching, pharmacy and other needed occupations.

By PM

January 23, 2008 7:56 AM | Link to this

We need a pre-kid program instead to educate parents how to raise a child (or to contemplate if they really want one and can afford it)!

Otherwise, this is just another babysitting operation being proposed. I agree with Rosemarie.

By JustMe

January 23, 2008 7:57 AM | Link to this

School for 3 year olds? As an educator, I have never heard of any recommended type of formal education for students that young.

We do not need to fool ourselves. If this is publicly funded day care, then call it that. But please, don’t call it pre-K under the false description of education.

If the Lottery coffers are over flowing, and the current pre-K is well funded, why don’t we fund K-12? Out idiot Gov. Perdue cut K-12 funding a few years ago. He called it ‘temporary’ but yet it is still in place.

GA is such a hypocritical State. We say that we want the best for our students - the best public education. Yet, Purdue cuts its funding. All we ever get is lip service. When will the voters wake up?

By George

January 23, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this

Roy Barnes funded the Pre-K years ago from the Hope scholarship and it drained the HOPE to the point of a financial crisis. Now that we have bailed out of that we now want to expand the program?? Not a good idea.

By Vicki

January 23, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this

Social skills would be the only benefit that a 3 year old would gain from this experience. This also sounds to me like another government based baby-sitting service.

The unused lottery funds should be used to reinforce an already under funded budget.

By jim d

January 23, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this

Bridget,

Why not?

You answered that question in the first five words of the blog.

“A group of Democratic lawmakers”

Need I say more?

By DB

January 23, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this

Pre-school for 3 year olds with government funds? NO!! I’m sorry, this isn’t a school program — this becomes a babysitting program! There are so many needs in our schools as it is, why on earth would we want to add yet ANOTHER grade to the problem?

My children attended pre-school at 3 — in a nice church around the corner, three mornings a week. And let’s be clear on it — it was for my benefit as much, if not more, than theirs. It freed up nine hours a week to allow me to get a little work done, both with my work-from-home business and housework, and gave them a chance to play with other kids.

However, no where in there did I ever think that the government owed me for pre-school. It was my choice.

By Tim Morris

January 23, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this

Another example of the idiots we send to the State Leg. Why don’t we just go the the hospital with a catcher’s mitt and catch them when they pop out. When are the Educator’s of Georgia going to stand up and say enough of this stupidity. This is just another example of letting someone who doesn’t have a clue about the field of Education run the program. It would be just a baby sitting service paid for by the tax payers of Ga.

By The Momster

January 23, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this

Pre-K for three-year olds? No Way!! Why not use some of the money to add more slots to existing pre-K programs so parents won’t get closed out of them and forced into private pre-k? Use some money to fund OUTREACH parent educators to go into communities where new parents and parents of young children can be taught parenting skills, have reading programs, etc. We need to prepare parents so they will be able to be supportive and reinforce skills that are taught in pre-K and elementary school. Let’s have a parent-school partnership instead of putting all the burden on the school system.

By ron

January 23, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

Everyone needs a baby sitter so why not pre-K for 3 year olds?Then there’s always pre-pre K for 2 year olds.Maybe we can have pre-pre—pre-pre-pre K for pregnant women.All of this beats paying for day care and it gets the kid out of the parent’s hair so they can concentrate on the important things in life.This program will be mandatory of course.For Everyone.

By Anon

January 23, 2008 8:27 AM | Link to this

PreK for 3 year olds????? How about we just start them in school the minute they are born. The mother can give birth, and there should be a teacher right there in the delivery room to take the baby to school……problem solved……No need for the mother to bond with the child. Just turn them over to the government right away….

By DYJ

January 23, 2008 8:27 AM | Link to this

Sounds like democratic lawmakers want a Pre-K for 3 year olds for the sole purpose of a state funded babysitting service. It’s not the states job to raise children!

By Jeff

January 23, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this

I’m about to come off sounding like Mr. Liberty here, but here goes anyway!

Why do we need to put kids into government-controlled Indoctrination Centers that early?

Why, so they never have ANY taste of Freedom.

So that parents can NEVER teach their kids ideas that may be politically incorrect.

So that we can create a generation of TRUE government sheep. Never question anything. Never desire freedom. Always listen to Big Brother. Above all else, OBEY Big Brother.

The answer, as always, is LIMITED government constrained by the Constitution.

Only one politician out there supports this ideal.

Here’s a hint: This politician beat John McCain in Nevada last Saturday….

By Gordon

January 23, 2008 8:48 AM | Link to this

I thought Pre K was a waste and a lie. Government funded baby sitting. All those parents who want free baby sitting should have thought a little more before they had children. Based upon the nutty crap that is comming out of Atlanta, I see now why everyone thinks our education system is in such a mess. As with most problems in our society today, the problem lies with the people. Eveyone wants someone else to help them pay for their mistakes or their standard of living.

By Jennifer

January 23, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this

If it’s structured correctly I think it’s a fabulous idea. My son, now 7, started an unofficial pre-k at 3. The day care he attended had a wonderful teacher who got parents permission to begin teaching them to read and write. He attended a montissori school at 4 which helped him get inital fundamentals down. So when he went into Ga funded pre-k at 4 it wasn’t such a shock to him. He was already comfortable with being a class setting. It also helped him stay ahead of the curve. He also came into his prek4 and k5 classes knowing the basics of Spanish and how to write his full name, which is very long for a child.

If a child is going to be in day care all day at 3 they might as well be getting the easy fundamentals.

By all for it

January 23, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

I say yes!!! My three yr old is in (so-called) daycare now. But, he is doing the samething my 5 yr old is doing in public school now. My three year old is comprehending his work. Stop babying these kids, this is why they are behind other countries in learning now,because we feel they are too young to do anything.I feel A child should be reading and doing spelling words before entering kindergarten. Kindergarten only expect for you child to know how to count 1-10. That is insane.

By jen

January 23, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this

Why not use the funds to pay for Pre-K for all of Georgia’s children. Right now it is a lottery and those who don’t make the lottery are left on their own.

As a side, Coralowod early education Center in Dekalb county has a 3 yr classroom along with the Pre-K and Kindergarten classes that offers a main streaming class combining both special needs children and typically developing children. The program is working extremely well and the school has been awarded the Governor’s Platinum Award for the past 3 years staright. Each classroom is taught by a teacher with her Masters in Early Childhood Education / Special Education. They target age appropiate developmental skills, including social skills. If nothing else, a 3 yr program could target social skills, following directions and attention to task, skills that are targetted in Pre-K. This could clear up some time in the Pre-K classes to focus more on academics and development of physical, mental, and social skills.

By jen

January 23, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this

Why not use the funds to pay for Pre-K for all of Georgia’s children. Right now it is a lottery and those who don’t make the lottery are left on their own.

As a side, Coralowod early education Center in Dekalb county has a 3 yr classroom along with the Pre-K and Kindergarten classes that offers a main streaming class combining both special needs children and typically developing children. The program is working extremely well and the school has been awarded the Governor’s Platinum Award for the past 3 years staright. Each classroom is taught by a teacher with her Masters in Early Childhood Education / Special Education. They target age appropiate developmental skills, including social skills. If nothing else, a 3 yr program could target social skills, following directions and attention to task, skills that are targetted in Pre-K. This could clear up some time in the Pre-K classes to focus more on academics and development of physical, mental, and social skills.

By V for Vendetta

January 23, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

While I can actually see the good intentions behind this program (unlike the completely asinine paying kids to learn crap), I still think it’s the job of the PARENTS to teach kids that early on. I have a very young child myself. I have been working on her letters and numbers since the day she was able to hold up her head without assistance. The result:

I was in the gorcery store and my child was happily reciting the ABCs (slightly off key, but the effort was there!). A woman passing by stopped and said “My goodness, tell me that little child doesn’t already know the ABCs!” I said “well, most of them.” (The middle of the song could get a little fuzzy, we are, after all, talking about rote memorization here, not mastery!) The woman asked me how my child knew so many of the ABCs at such a young age. I looked at her with puzzlement, and I said (hopefully not too rudely) “because I taught them to her.”

It seems like a simple thing. It really does! But you would be completely shocked at how ignorant some parents are to this idea. In that respect, I say younger education can only help. If every parent was as proactive as many on this blog are, we wouldn’t have half of the problems currently ruining public education.

But they aren’t. Not even close.

Like I said, I’m torn on this one, but when in doubt I must go with my highly elitist beliefts: screw the ignorant masses. Leave education in the hands of the parents. The IQs eventually work themselves out.

Eventually.

By zeke

January 23, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

Hell No! The government(s) have taken too much control of our kids already with their indoctrinations of socialism, multi culturalism, diversity, etc. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!

By oneladybugmom

January 23, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

BRING IT ON!!! My daughter will be 4 tomorrow and I could not be more proud that she is in Pre-K 5 days a week! It is an environment that allows her to learn at her own pace on a conceptual level, not the shove it down your throat you old people remember of the teacher with the ruler. She ties her own shoes, can write her name, knows all her colors, alphabet and can count to 20. For those of you wanting to “baby” your kids, that’s fine, my daughter will beat the pants off them in school and then boss them around in the workplace! By the way, she is also involved at our church on Sundays and my mother’s church on Wednesdays, both of which are different than the one she attends and all three are different portions of the Christian religion. She also knows 15 different bible verses. This all comes from a girl they told me would never walk, talk, feed herself, clean or dress herself, or have any semblance of understanding higher than a 5 year old. Now, she is turning 4 and smarter than my 6 year old niece that has been in Pre-K since she was 3 as well! Take that into consideration and see if your kids can beat my little genius!

By oneladybugmom

January 23, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

BRING IT ON!!! My daughter will be 4 tomorrow and I could not be more proud that she is in Pre-K 5 days a week! It is an environment that allows her to learn at her own pace on a conceptual level, not the shove it down your throat you old people remember of the teacher with the ruler. She ties her own shoes, can write her name, knows all her colors, alphabet and can count to 20. For those of you wanting to “baby” your kids, that’s fine, my daughter will beat the pants off them in school and then boss them around in the workplace! By the way, she is also involved at our church on Sundays and my mother’s church on Wednesdays, both of which are different than the one she attends and all three are different portions of the Christian religion. She also knows 15 different bible verses. This all comes from a girl they told me would never walk, talk, feed herself, clean or dress herself, or have any semblance of understanding higher than a 5 year old. Now, she is turning 4 and smarter than my 6 year old niece that has been in Pre-K since she was 3 as well! Take that into consideration and see if your kids can beat my little genius!

By msb

January 23, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this

Why can’t we just let kids be kids? Isn’t three just a little too young to be asking kids to grow up? We start them off early in reading, writing, and math, trying to get a head start (on what I’m not sure), then we complain when they are teenagers and we don’t want them to act so grown up. We’ve made them that way! Pre-k at three is ridiculous!

By Ernest

January 23, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

I wonder if this offering is a reaction to the US having more competition in the global marketplace? The fact that this is being offered as a ‘voluntary’ program lessens some of the sting. It could also serve as a training ground for prospective new teachers. Without question, requirements for providers would have to change.

As others have said, it still seems like a back door attempt to provide daycare under the guise of education. The government is offering legislation for something some parents won’t do, read to their children.

Has anyone thought about where we would house this program? Didn’t Cobb County eliminate their Pre-K program due to space concerns? If approved, would construction dollars come along with this?

By It's shouldn't be mandatory

January 23, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

I don’t see the harm in offering the program. The current Pre-K program is not mandatory and some choose to put their children in, while others still keep ther children at home with them.

Anyway, alot of children are in daycare centers at the age of 3.
Maybe some of their parents would like a more educational environment for their kids.

It’s hard to believe that the children would be expected to sit at a desk or do homework. For it to be successful it would need to be geared toward a three year old’s perspectives and abilities. This means singing a song about the letter A, or drawing it in the air while zooming around like an airplane.

I think the only people that won’t go for this program’s existence are stay at home parents that want to keep their kids at home but worry the 3-Pre-K kids will end up with an advantage over their kids. That to me is very selfish and protectionist.

Plus, I’m sure alot of parents with kids in daycare wish they could stay at home with their children but can’t.

So what’s wrong with leaving this additional option on the table for everyone?

By SouthFultonMom

January 23, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

Well…who’s to say that a child that can recite their ABC’s from memory, or bible verses will be smarter than a kid that didn’t? Where is the research behind this theory?! Reciting and identifying are two different things. Teach a bible verse without the child understanding what they’re saying is meaningless. And being able to sing the ABC song doesn’t mean the child knows the alphabet, they just know a song.

I worked with both of my kids from birth. Read to them every day (teaching colors, alphabet from sight, object identification, sounds, etc), took them to Toddler Thursdays at the high museum, took them to the free Monday afternoons at Botanical gardens (this program no longer exists), and took them to the puppet shows at the library. I exposed them to so much that when they did start pre-school, they were ahead of the other kids. Today, my 9 year old is in the gifted program and my 13 year old is an honor student. I don’t think that any daycare could’ve nor would’ve exposed them to as much as I did and continue to do. It’s because of good parenting, not a sterile school environment that each of them is doing well.

Let’s not resort to name calling. This is a good topic. Personally, as both an educator and parent, I don’t think that a 3 year old pre-k class is needed, however for some kids, it may be the only way that they’re exposed to the world outside of their neighborhoods. But please know, for many, this will be lottery funded baby-sitting. I’m torn on the subject because I know the pros and cons. The question is - which will benefit the most kids?

By Camille

January 23, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

There is a huge part of me that feels that this is a very bad idea, especially after having one child go through the useless government funded pre-K program. In sending my child to one of these programs, what I was basically told time and time again was that they were not really going to learn anything (this is when asking questions like will they learn to read, write, etc.). The program turned out to be nothing but teaching them how to behave in a classroom setting, learning how to recognize their name, colors, and alphabet. All things that I had already taught him prior to turning 4 years old. This was about 5 years ago, my oldest son is now 9 and in the 4th grade. My baby is now 2 and is in a “private” school (day care). In retrospect, I wish that I had sent my oldest son to the same school because I can see where the youngest will have learned so much more by the time he reaches kindergarten than my oldest son. My youngest will not be attending the government sponsored pre-K, as his current school will have him reading, learning Spanish, writing, etc. during that time. I see it as making an investment in my child’s future. And, in my opinion, the government-sponsored schools are not doing that great in this area.

With all of that said, I agree that it does sound as if 3 is a very early age to push “schooling” on them. However, with the younger age groups, they are having fun while learning at the same time. The classrooms really do not become structured until they are in pre-K, which is at the age of 4. And, even then, the classrooms are not as structured as they are when they are in 1st grade. It’s a gradual process, but over the years, they learn what is expected of them during class time. In my experience, the kids that don’t attend school until kindergarten are the ones that have problems adjusting to the classroom setting because they have not been exposed to it. So, they tend to be disruptive in class.

And, given how we are becoming a global society, it would benefit us (U.S. parents) to give our kids the best eduational advantage at an earlier age. They are not only competing against each other, but against kids from other nations, some of whom tend to be educational superior to us. If we don’t start taking education serious in this country, we are going to left behind. This program may be a start, but if it is going to be run like the pre-K programs, then the money earmarked for this should be used to fix the problems with the current system.

By catlady

January 23, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

Well, I am not happy with much of what I see from the current pre K program. I would NOT, as an educator, support any kind of governmental 3 year old program. Too much room for mis-use, and unintended consequences.

How about taking the excess money to use for other worthwhile goals, as mentioned earlier: nursing, teacher ed (not from a diploma mill), apprenticeships, mandatory parent education classes for those who, child after child, keep making a mess of it, graduate education HOPE scholarships in selected fields. Let’s not keep lowering the age for the government to “take over” the rearing of the child.

By SET

January 23, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this

Remember in this Brave New World we have arranged things so that married mothers have to go back to work when the children are born. There is great demand for childcare. “Schools” are actually childcare centers because education is optional at our “schools”.

So why not start them early, it’s what the families want.

By .

January 23, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

I think this program would be very helpful for parents who are working poor and can’t afford to stay home and can’t really afford daycare.

I think it’s a progressive welfare program that would help poorer parents continue to work and give the kids a head start on their education.

And if it’s optional then those who don’t want to participant don’t have to.

It’s not your tax dollars, after all. It’s lottery money…

By Martha

January 23, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

It is a good idea. For 2 good reasons. 1) Kids need a organized environment to get ready for skills they need and age 3 is not too early.

2) Most working moms leave their child at whatever age in Day Care anyways paying the bills for it too. If this same program turns into a so called pre-K with little more information than baby sitting what is the harm? Obiviously the workload is not going to thrown upon them as some people freak out. If there a financial assistance in this program it solves two purposes laid out above.

I think people who oppose either they have not thought this out or have enough income to sit home and care for their children. These programs are not mandatory to begin with.

It is a step further in right direction and successful path that we already as Georgians have paved towards free Pre-K.

By Jeff

January 23, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

.:

Government is government. I don’t care WHO or WHAT funds it.

Big Government and Individual Liberty/ Personal Responsibility have an inversely proportional relationship.

That is to say that when one increases, the other diminishes.

Me, I agree with Patrick Henry: I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

By Tater

January 23, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

How about a Pre-K for parents. We have a whole lot of parents out there that could use a course(s) in how to BE a parent, not another vehcile for dropping them off to let the teachers raise them.

By JustMe

January 23, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

It seems that most every single person here believes strongly that this should NOT happen.

Do ya think the will of the people will prevail? Let’s see.

By .

January 23, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

Well, Jeff, you can be as ridiculously militant about your ideals as you want but the fact remains is that this idea is (1) not mandatory, and (2) not paid for by YOUR tax dollars. So you can avoid it by (1) not putting your child in it, and (2) not buying lottery tickets.

Your freedom and liberty is intact, so please rest well.

Besides, you’re so wet behind the ears it’s kind of funny how unbendable you THINK you are.

By Jeff

January 23, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

.:

How is my freedom secured when your child is going to a school that will indoctrinate him into the belief that Individual Liberty is not something worth dying for?

Eventually, your kid will grow up and be able to vote.

If Big Government has been successful in its indoctrination, he will vote to further erode my liberty.

Tyranny over one is tyranny over all.

The American Public of 2008 would be well served by heading the lessons of 1778.

By Scott

January 23, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

Speaking as the father of a two & a half yr old who’s going to go to church preschool in the fall - gov money should be spent on making existing school programs (K-12) work before creating new ones. (The best notion that Huckabee has is the increased need for arts education)

Besides - government funding easily becomes a government mandate requiring enrollment by the parents; who’s to say that all 3yrolds are ready for school?

Amen to everyone above who says that parents have the primary responsibility for education, not government. It’s not like government actually cares if your child is successful - or can even define success meaningfully for an individual (as opposed to a statistical grouping).

By .

January 23, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

It’s MY kid, not yours, dude. I don’t like organized religion but I am not going to tell you I don’t want you bringing up another brainwashed myth worshipper who will grow up to vote against abortion or gay marriage will erode MY access to Liberty.

And this concept that a public school will “indoctrinate him into the belief that Individual Liberty is not something worth dying for?” is absurd. Parents always have control - over the schools (as long as there is not stupid GREAT plan), the curriculum, and over what their own child gets indoctrinated with.

Go ahead and procreate and indoctrinate YOUR kid to grow up to be like you - good luck with that.

Your argument - weak.

By V for Vendetta

January 23, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

Tater, perhaps we should take a good hard look at who SHOULD be parents. I don’t want to get too Anthem-ish here, but I’ve seen a LOT of people in my years who have no right reproducing.

They’re now being supported by all of us in the form of tax dollars. So are their kids. And so, too, will be their kids’ kids. Makes one wonder …

By Jeff

January 23, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

.:

If my argument is so weak, why are you supporting it?

My whole point is that it is not the GOVERNMENT’s job to teach kids.

It is the PARENT’s.

Personally, I really couldn’t care less what YOU teach your kid. Heck, you want your kid to believe that there are no absolute truths, that 2 + 2 can equal 5, go ahead. As long as YOU are doing it, I’m going to support your right to do so.

Where I’m going to start raising CAIN is when the GOVERNMENT starts doing it.

By .

January 23, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this

Sorry, dude, if it’s voluntary and not paid by your taxes then you really don’t have a good argument.

By Supporter of Pre-K for 3 year olds

January 23, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

I am from a state where that supports a Pre-k program starting at the age of three. Parents could chose to send their children to any school in that state (private or public). We opted for a school that not only taught our child but also supplied the nurturing that she still needed at that age. My daughter greatly benefited from the Pre-K program and she was light years ahead of many of her classmates when we transplanted to GA. I will also say, as a parent we can’t leave all education responsbilities up to teachers, teaching has to come from home too. Do we ever wonder why GA is in the bottom tier of education nationally?

By CollegeKid

January 23, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

The purpose of Pre-K is to SOCIALLY prepare kids for kindergarten. I work at a daycare, and I can tell you…were doing a pretty half-assed job. Mix that with half-assed parents, and you get this generation of block-headed kids. Adding Pre-K programs for three year-olds is a waste of time and money without the proper materials: quality administrators of the program, quality teachers that KNOW how to run a classroon, and most importantly, quality parents. Let’s fix what we have before we start something else.

By Vickie

January 23, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

I am a working Mom. I decided to put my daughter in pre-school at 3 years old for the variety of activities and more exposure to other kids. She also attended pre-k at the age of 4. She loved it.

I recommend all mothers to enroll their kids if they can afford it. I would suggest no more than 3 times a week for 3-1/2 hours each day. It has also been said that kids do better in school by attending pre-school and pre-k.

By Scott

January 23, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

This is a great idea. I wish this would be in place for my 3 year old.

Not everyone is blessed to have the cash flow to allow the wife (or husband, in rare cases) stay home and raise the children. Money is incredibly tight with this current economical situation, and I for one would rather my child be in a state funded and initiated program rather than “day-care” all day long.

By taxpayer

January 23, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Where will the 3 year olds be housed? Will they be in a school building? Those paying school taxes do pay for the school buildings. There are many students already being housed in mobile classrooms. I do not think that other students should lose indoor classroom space for 3 year olds to be in the building.

By .

January 23, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

It’s not your tax money. Repeat after me: It’s not tax money. It’s lottery money. It’s not tax money.

By One

January 23, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

I agree with those that have experienced their child in a school setting at 3. My daughters day care also had a pre-k program. Well, her birthday is a little behind that stupid Sept. 1 rule, but based on her abilities, she was allowed to enter pre-k at age 3 (she turned four in late October). Not only did she do super well, she has stayed ahead of the curve. Of course I had to keep her in private school (kinder and 1st grade) the first few years, but by 2nd grade, I switched her to public school, and she has been in the gifted program ever since. Even the public elementary school principal told me when I registered her to not be surprised if she didn’t maintain her excellent grades (pretty much all A’s), because private schools tend to inflate the grades to make the parents feel they are getting their money worth. I looked him dead on the eyeball and said, “I am not worried, she’s earned them all”. And true to form, she has excelled. Now, at 15, she’s a high school sophomore at a dual magnet charter school of the arts and sciences majoring in piano and math. So, it can be done! Don’t sell your kids short, they don’t need you as much as you would like to believe. Okay, for some things, maybe, but they can be very independent!

By One

January 23, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

Let’s look at it this way………..

What would you rather see happen to your lottery money……..all of the lottery employees get fat bonuses several times a year? Or, the future of America getting a better chance at being educated? I vote for the kids!!!! Damn the politicians and lottery employees!!!

By Vickie

January 23, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

I forgot to mention that my daughter has been in in-home day care since the age of 10 weeks. I made sure that all future day cares provided transportation to and from school. To this day, she still gets the home atmosphere from my day care.

By metoo

January 23, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

As Rosemarie aptly stated: “Public school for 3 year olds is insane” It’s been over 10 years since the lottery funded Pre-K for 4 yr olds began under the guise of giving them a leg up on education. So where are the results? Georgia is still 50th in the nation last time I checked. I also agree with Lucky who said ” use that lotto money on something like scholarships for nursing…” Aren’t hospitals around here consistently about 30% understaffed? And as PM said “this is just another babysitting operation”

By Danielle

January 23, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

I know everyone is against it but I think i’s a great idea. My son has been in daycare since he was 1 1/2 and has learned a great deal. He learned to write at 3 and that I’m very proud of. The drawback to the present program is that my son was born in Jaunary and may have to sit and wait an extra year because of how his bday falls. Which I believe is not fair. With Georgia being 49th out of 50 states for education why not…no one is making pre-k mandatory but by making it available sooner then more parents may take advantage of it thereby increasing the graduation rate of seniors (hopefully). And with all the “booksmart” my son is learning he still plays, and goes outside. He is still a big baby.

By Allison

January 23, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

Although I am not a fan of doing a PreK class for 3-year-olds in lieu of a regular preschool class for that agegroup, I could see such a program as something that is available for children who turn 4 beyond the 4-year-old PreK deadline, but would otherwise be ready for a PreK program.

However, that being said, if there is extra money available and a 3-year-old PreK program is not an option, then the “extra” money needs to go towards improving the PreK program that’s already out there.

By Daynise

January 23, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

I think you all have a lot of good comments; however it is a bit elitist to think that it would not benefit children from impoverished and undereducated families. Daycare for three year olds from those type of environments would be wonderful learning opportunities for kids who may not be exposed to books or eat balanced meals. Let’s not make assumptions about the type of child this would benefit.

By Janine

January 23, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

Of course, we all know this is not tax money, but lottery money. Nevertheless, it is the GOV’t that will distribute this money, and decide how and on what programs/materials it will be spent. It is the GOV’t that will administer all phases of this program, just as it does all public education.

By Cole

January 23, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

From my perspective if lottery funds are to be used to expand the Pre-K program, then maybe instead of going by the 9/1 rule, they expand it to 12/31. In that case 3 yo’s would be allowed in. How much difference is there really between the kid that turns 4 on 8/31 and the one who turns 4 on 9/2 — other than the fact that one can enter pre-k and the other one has to wait a year.

By .

January 23, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

Daynise, I am with you on that score. That’s EXACTLY why I think this is a good idea.

And you’re right. Those who say that children should stay at home until kindergarten or other mantra about “being raised by the daycare” are very, very, very elitist. They have the ability to do that AND they think it’s the best for their child so they think it’s the ONLY way.

Personally, I think it’s NOT a good idea for kids to stay soley with mom or dad for the first 5-6 years of their lives. Who said mom or dad is able and has the time to teach baby how to read? Most stay at home moms also have to keep house - where is the time to teach the kid?

By Jeff

January 23, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

Cole:

The fact remains that any attempt at grouping by age means that some arbitrary date has to be set.

Why, the logical thing to do then would be to group by ability!

Oh wait, the government wants us to think that everyone can achieve the exact same things and that everyone has the exact same strengths and weaknesses.

By .

January 23, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

It’s the government that polices the lottery. You wouldn’t want to take THAT away would you?

What about all those people who want the government to disallow the lottery because it’s GASP gambling?!?!

By JustMe

January 23, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

I have a better idea!

Let’s set the HOPE up to pay for a nurse aid in the hospital. As soon as the baby is born, that nurse aid can take the baby from the parents and raise it in a State run facility - paid for by HOPE of course!

The State can assure that the child eats well, is clothed, and is educated until the age of 18. And, the parents can visit whenever they like!!

Won’t that be lovely!

By .

January 23, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

grouping by age means that some arbitrary date has to be set.

Ya always gotta start SOMEWHERE.

Why, the logical thing to do then would be to group by ability!

They call that “playing up” or sending the kid to Challenge, or to Magnet, or to AP.

What’s the problem here?

By Jeff

January 23, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

.:

Even on the lottery, my take is this:

If a private organization wants to use gambling as its way to make money, it should have the freedom to.

Government has ZERO business in the arena.

I don’t want Government out of gambling because gambling is a sin (indeed, I personally don’t have a problem with it if you choose to do it, and I have been known to enjoy it from time to time myself).

I want Government out of gambling because it has no Constitutional basis for being in that industry to begin with.

By Jeff

January 23, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

JustMe:

Now you’ve done it.

You’ve given the sheeple another grand idea.

BAD JustMe! BAD!

:P

By .

January 23, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

JustMe, ooooh, yeah, because it’s been 60 years since Eric Arthor Blair wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four…it’s happening any minute now! Watchout!

By .

January 23, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

because gambling is a sin

Only if you believe in “sins”.

However, government regulation is a thorny but sadly need fact of life.

Don’t think so? Just look to England during the 1800s…or America…

By Jeff

January 23, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

.:

Regarding magnet etc:

Your kid is still classified in the same grade as the kid that eats paste.

Why not put out a set of standards for each ‘grade’ level and let kids test up at their own pace?

Personally, I would have graduated HS under such a situation probably at LEAST 3 yrs earlier than I did. Indeed, My Gov/Econ class in HS was self study (I was at the alternative school at that point) and I managed to finish THREE classes (Government, Economics, and Sociology) in the same amount of time as most kids finished ONE (or, in some cases, ONE HALF).

Guess what? Even at that pace, I learned a sufficient amount that when I took those same classes at KSU, I didn’t run across very much new information. (The things I learned at Kennesaw in those classes had more to do with social skills and political debate than actual information.)

By Jeff

January 23, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

.:

Government regulation is needed ONLY to prevent monopolies.

The problem is, in so many areas we have given GOVERNMENT the monopoly.

Government is no longer about securing Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility because…

Government IS the very business it is suppposed to protect us from!

By .

January 23, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

Like I said…they call that Playing Up and it already exists.

By Vicki

January 23, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

. = jim d
Go jim d Go!

Jeff = name calling and :p so early in the day!

By catlady

January 23, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

Jeff, that is a sad commentary on the rigor at KSU. I assume you are talking about intro classes, however.

By jim d

January 23, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

BS

It is little wonder kids are so F&%$@# up. Some of y’all need to get your priorities staright and raise you own damn kids. You had em.

Make the sacrifices needed, even if it means staying at home and doing your damn job, and quit expecting the Gov, to fill your parental shoes.

By jim d

January 23, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

As hard as it is to believe, looks like JM, you and I all actually agree on this one!

By Jeff

January 23, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

.:

Maybe in your suburbian utopia it exists.

And even if it does, it is at the ‘benevolence’ of your local government.

It aint gonna happen for some poor kid from the wrong side of the tracks (or, in some cases, the wrong side of the aisle), no matter how smart the kid is.

TRUST me on that one. I’ve seen it first hand, both as a teacher and as a student.

By Jeff

January 23, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

catlady:

Actually, it says more about the sheer amount of information I had learned prior to going to KSU than it does about the level of rigor at KSU. In fact, that SOCI class in particular at KSU was quite challenging, I simply already knew most of the information being presented.

Also, you are correct about each of the three I mentioned being intro classes. In fact, the ECON class was the ECON requirement for GenEd (as were the other two), but it was the ONE class I took while officially there on Joint Enrollment that was an actual Joint Enrollment class (ie, every student in that particular class was officially a HS student as well).

By Reader

January 23, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this

Does anyone remember that when the lottery was first approved, it was to fund: the HOPE, the pre-K, AND technology in schools. Why not go back to the original formula as voted upon and approved? Many local systems have trouble keeping up with the best as far as hardware goes - and for a time, we had the mechanism in place to provide for this.

So, no more new programs dipping in — just go back to the original.

By Jeff

January 23, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this

jim:

DANG!!!!

.:

You really just don’t know how RARE it is for all three of us to agree on ANY issue in education.

By .

January 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this

I don’t live in “suburbia”. Inner city all the way!

By Joy in Teaching

January 23, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this

I just had to buy another case of paper with my own money because the two cases that I am being rationed this year is about gone.

It would be nice to have lottery money pay for that instead of me. Money is getting tight these days.

But instead, the government would rather waste money on yet another underfunded program instead of shoring up the underfunded programs that we already have in place.

By HB

January 23, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

I like the idea of providing voluntary (not all are ready yet!) pre-K for 3-year-olds, in theory. Spending a half-day with other children, getting use to a group setting, learning to follow simple rules can be good for them and help them to be comfortable in the classroom setting without Mom or Dad around long before anyone’s tyring to teach them to read and add — they’ll be that much more ready to learn when they’re 5.

That said, I think it makes far more sense to provide more slots for 4-year-olds first. If there’s a waiting list for that group, why open up a whole new grade? So that half as many kids can get two year’s worth of pre-K instead of one (I assume those in the 3yo program would be given priority for the next year at their school)? Get all the 4-year-olds in whose parents want them there first, then worry about the younger kids.

By fedup

January 23, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this

I’m laughing!!! Where do they think they will find the teachers? Are we going to use recent grads of associate and diploma programs? Many systems employed Pre-K teachers w/two year degrees. Most of those systems have gone to teachers w/bachelor’s degress. Lack of work ethics and know-how was a huge problem. My daughter went thru the Pre-K program for 4 year olds. She was bored out of her mind. She attended a church daycare/preschool from birth-4 and learned much more. Pre-K was just free babysitting. Leave the daycare/preschool to private providers. They do a much better job. Maybe those same private providers would do a better job of K-12.

By catlady

January 23, 2008 8:15 PM | Link to this

One other concern I have: you start the program and you have an immediate entitlement. And what happens when the lottery money goes down? Do we make the HOPE scholarship pay less than it does now, or make it harder to get? ‘Cause I can tell you, I never heard any talk (perhaps I have forgotten?) a couple of years ago when there was concern that HOPE was going to run out of money—no one ever said, “We will have to do away with preK”. Instead they went after HOPE. Anyone suggesting to end the pre k program would have been run out of town! And it would be the same thing once a 3 year old program was established. Parents would claim a “right” to it. And if it was part time, parents would insist on a day care part also to fill in the other time. Where would that money come from—these same parents? I think not.

So you have at least 3 problems: is a program for 3 year olds appropriate, could it be adequately staffed and housed (remember Cobb Co), and would it begin a program with soft money that could never be ended if the soft money dried up.

Think about it, legislators. Long and hard.

By Tony

January 23, 2008 9:57 PM | Link to this

As an educator, I am adamantly opposed to starting a preK program - optional or not - for three year old children. Separating children this young from the nurture and care of the family is absurd! Putting them in the hands of government funded (and run) preK programs is equivalent to ideals espoused by Hitler. He believed that to accomplish his goals it was better to start with the children.

I strongly support the program for four year old PreK and I believe there has been a huge benefit for children in that program, but there is no evidence that suggests the three year old children should begin school that early.

To George: There was NO crisis in HOPE funding. The strings were tightened because of an agenda that claimed the standards needed to be raised. With some hocus pocus accounting, it was said that HOPE would run out of money within 40 years. However, analysis after the fact indicated there was no funding crisis even in the 40 years that was claimed.

When the lottery was passed by voters, it was given a three-pronged mission. HOPE, PreK and technology. These days, only two of the prongs of that mission are funded: HOPE and PReK. A very wise use of the funding would be to support the technology in schools. In my school, we have 70 classrooms. About half of them are equipped with computers that run on Windows 98. They are slow. Some of them can not even run our school’s grading program for teachers.

By Kristina Gilchrist

January 25, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

I was appauled to move to Georgia and discover that there is no Pre - K 3 classes being offered. In Washington, DC my son attended a school that went from Pre-K 3 - 12th grade. My husband and I saw tremendous improvements in my son after taking him out of “daycare”. Sometimes as parents we form these opinions based on our own co-dependent needs and/or fears. As a working mom who does not have an option of homeschooling I am 100% behind Pre-K 3 classes to give parents like me an option. As a minority, I want to give my son every chance he can get at getting a head start on his education and to not limit his abilities. If you don’t want your kid in the class, don’t send him! My son is bored in “daycare” after having experienced the Pre K 3 class setting in which some of you can only imagine what it would be like. I have seen both sides and am able to form an objective opinion as it relates to MY family. You cannot go against something that you have not even given a chance which then leaves me with no other options but to go back to DC or keep my son in a class where he sings songs and learns how to share toys all day. There is a reason there are Montessouri schools for 3 year olds and other special schools - they understand the capabilities of our children and the power of choices.