No. Although it was in the not-so-distant past (i.e., I have kids still attending it who attended it while it was a T1). This has never been the policy and I actually find it shocking. It doesn't come from DCPS, so it must come from the principal? |
PP here. This is a title 1 school. Building Blocks! That’s the funny name! Yes, they do that but I thought it started in PK4. I could be wrong about that. There is both whole group and small group during the ELA and Building Blocks, and I believe sometimes they will also have one of the “centers” be a small group instruction in reading and/or math. |
Building Blocks at our PK3 is only games-based in that center. Lots of dice rolling. It's not a whole class 10-15 minute thing (like Heggerty) until PK4. |
My school doesn’t follow the manual exactly but small groups are 10-30 minutes and whole groups 10-40 minutes. I doubt any school follows it perfectly due to time constraints, however we get as close as possible. It’s a full curriculum for Pre-K 3 (though not a great one), and schools are supposedly required to use all of it. Good for that principal! I wish I knew which schools don’t use it so I could work there. Some colleagues’ schools also purchased the computer program for 3-5 year olds. I’m curious if most Pre-Ks have 2 recesses -we only have one. Center time is 1 hour total. During 30-minute blocks, I pull small groups… Yea…I’m finding a new school. It’s hard to tell what it’s really going to be like. Maybe I will show up to some of these open houses as a parent! Just need a disguise!
|
| Interesting that some parent on here asked Jeff to delete 2 ECE teachers actual experience in DCPS about how ECE is too academic and not play based…. |
This feels very much like our T1 PK experience except there was some HW in PK4 (never PK3) and here's where I landed: both my kids thrived socially and academically and their friends seemed to do similarly for the most part. I know there are a million theories on educational strategies and learning but ultimately my kids were safe and happy and they also seemed to be learning. There is no perfect fit for every kid and family and anyone who tells you there is is lying to you and themselves. We looked at Montessori and after my kid started school and did well we ended up turning it down because it would have been horrible for him personally. But it works for other kids so that's great. |
This sounds like way too much academics. I don’t agree with all these mandates going down to ECE teachers about it. My kid did not have any academics and did not know almost all of the stuff PP said above (counting to 100, addition, etc,.). He knew the alphabet and still could not read in K. ECE was so much fun and inquisitive and they did cool things like build an aquarium, set up a broadcast station, lots of great field trips, etc.. Just finished elementary and top student. |
One of the teachers commenting here* Yes, but research strongly supports guided play over teacher-led academics in early childhood. To be clear: play-based learning doesn’t mean kids can’t learn academics. Many of my students learned letter sounds, read CVC words, and counted to 100 -because they were interested, so I taught them. Here’s the key: the students who weren’t ready for reading yet? They learned within 6-9 weeks in kindergarten. The “early push” gave no meaningful advantage. Montessori is a different model -it’s highly structured and doesn’t work for every child, so it’s not a valid counterargument to guided play. Teacher skill also matters enormously. A play-based program is only effective with a skilled teacher facilitating it (like anything). Play is a fundamental right of childhood. If your child hasn’t been in Pre-K in the last 3 years or isn’t experiencing DCPS’s current developmentally inappropriate practices firsthand, you may not fully grasp what I’m describing. This isn’t just about happy kids -it’s about what research shows actually works. |
+1 I’m sure there will be a few skeptical or mean comments, so to be clear no one is saying your child will become a genius. Play-based learning isn’t “doing nothing.” It’s how young children naturally learn best. The research backs this up. We’re not debating genius vs. average -we’re debating harmful vs. appropriate education for 3 to early 5 year olds. By 3rd grade, no one can tell the difference between the kids who could do count to 100 in PK4 or read and those who couldn’t. This is called the “fadeout effect” and it’s well-documented in research. What you can’t measure as easily: The academic push comes at the cost of social-emotional skills, creativity, executive function, or intrinsic love of learning (not necessarily all of these and some kids it doesn’t show up until later). Because those skills actually predict long-term success -and play is how young children develop them. |
|
One of my kids is at a Title I right now for PK. EXTREMELY poorly performing school on the whole, although ECE has been as solid as advertised.
Just anecdotally though, absolutely zero homework for both PK3 and so far for PK4. They seem to do lots of play, but they do have certain focuses, but nothing seems too rigorously academic. |
I’m the PP above and yes teacher’s skills were important. My kid’s ECE teachers, both years, had masters in early childhood education. Also I wasn’t worried about my kid not reading in K. I knew the studies that pushing kids to read early gave no advantage at all later on so didn’t stress about it. His school reading program was phonics based and appropriate. Anyway summer after K, things just clicked for him and he started reading. By end of 1st grade he was reading at 2nd grade level. Totally agree with teacher above who knows the research. It’s nit about who can do the best addition or read in early years. It’s about developing curiosity, inquisitive, social skills, EF that you just can’t quantify concretely on paper. I would hate to stuff our a kids curiosity and love of school and play by forcing them to do worksheets day in and out and even worst HW. |
First time parent here. Briefly worked in education so interested in nerding out on this a bit. Thanks to all sharing experiences. If the research on play and ECE is so strong and has been consistent the past 10+ years … any insight into why DCPS is trending the other way the past few years? |
My kid started reading in PK4. By K he had abundant, access to stories, culture, information, ideas because he was already a strong independent reader. Becoming a "top student" was never the point of teaching him to read. |
| PreK-3 at Peabody was play-based, but the teacher had a master's degree in reading and literacy. I was always amazed when I spent time in the classroom. When we went for conferences, the teacher had videos of our child in centers demonstrating attainment of the learning standards. Over 10 years later, I still laugh about a video I received one day showing my kiddo selling "concert tickets". That year was such a joyous experience, and the teacher's level of instructional expertise was evident in the way that the children learned through play. |
Way to totally miss the point which is by 3rd grade the kids who were not reading yet have caught up to your kid and there is no difference. Spending too much time pushing reading early at the expense of play is of no benefit and you lose learning other more important skills discussed above. If you look at studies, the kids in head start might be more ahead academically but all gains are lost later. |