ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

As an early childhood professional, I would be both saddened and ashamed to believe that there are nursery schools that screen their applicants for “acceptable” behaviors.
Knowledgeable ECE professionals are cognizant of the broad spectrum of developmental abilities for “typical” children. Most two- and three-year old youngsters are just not terribly good at sharing. It is our job to help them learn this important social skill. Temper tantrums can be caused by frustration or lack of adequate expressive language skills. We must model conversational turn-taking for children and help them develop problem-solving skills. Some of the children who join our nursery school are experiencing separation from their parents for the first time in their short lives. Each child experiences the transfer of trust to a new adult caregiver in a different way. With patience and unconditional love, we can ease this transition. If youngsters arrived at our nursery school fully armed with these skills, they wouldn’t need nursery school.

It is unrealistic to interview or test two-, three-or four-year olds. According to the NAEYC Code of Ethics, it is unethical to discriminate against children for any reason. They come to us full promise and wonder, both typical children and those with developmental or physical disabilities, emotional or social difficulties, language delays, spectrum disorders or serious allergies. To cherry pick children to enroll in our classes and bypass those who may fill our days with more challenging behaviors is tantamount to writing these individuals off at a time in their lives when our love and guidance can make the most impact. It is our job as professional early childhood educators to lay the foundation to help children learn and grow up to their potential as useful members of their community. If we cannot do this for all children then we have no business being in the field. And if we choose to ignore this responsibility, then someday when we are older, those very few chosen elite will be responsible for all of us – including the individuals we overlooked and consigned to failure.

I am not from Porirua, United States but Porirua, New Zealand. As you can see I am still a learner!!!!!

It seems sad that children are judged in such a short time. I would think that it would take a lifetime to KNOW a child. If all children are seen as competent surely the onerous is on the adults to provide an environment that fosters and supports them rather than "fits" them into a structure. On reading this article I wondered what is the assessment of children's learning in America. If it is about the end product then perhaps fitting a child into a structure may seem important and finding that "perfect" preschool may sway judgement and sensiblity. However if assessment of children's learning is about noticing and fostering the process of a child's learning so that they are part of a learning community/state/country then "fitting" them anywhere seems incomplete and pointless.

I rolled my eyes and chuckled as I read the idea of 'safety schools' for pre-schoolers. That's the first I've heard of this. I am really uncomfortable with this idea. It scares me to think of the pressure these children must be under and what they are losing in their childhoods because of it. I can see where a parents intentions are good but go awry. I think it's important to allow children to 'just be' far more than what they are allowed.

As the director of an "it" preschool in Washington, DC, (our "it" being based on our absolute dedication to a play-based curriculum and a non-interview admission policy), and having been the director of another "it" preschool with a gentle but play-date/interview based process, I can say with certainty that there needs to be both kinds of school admission processes out there for the well-being of children, parents, and schools. At my present school, we can take children as they are - clingy, bad tempered, whatever - because we will work to help them reach their fullest potential and then send on to a school with the right fit for later schooling. Schools which accept children as two or three year olds who go on to higher grades within that setting and with a particular mission, need to take care to ensure that the young children they accept at 2 and 3 have the greatest potential to successfully move through the school in the higher grades. Nothing is more heartbreaking than to have to ask a family to leave their school home because their child is not able to succeed in that setting.

Of course, it would be best if every school could actually "take all children where they are" and teach them, but in highly rigorous programs, not all children can achieve at those levels, nor should they be made to feel bad about themselves by being in the catch up position or the lowest rung.

One thing I would like parents to know about the admission process for very young children: experienced admission people can tell an extraordinary amount about a child in just a few minutes - from the way they move issues with sensory processing may be revealed, from the way they speak (or don't) language issues may suggest themselves, from the way they interract or don't, that they may need some extra time to grow into themselves socially. Most of us appreciate hearing from parents when they know about and are addressing these kinds of issues with their children (eg, OT, S&L, limited social experience), particularly if the issues are likely to emerge in an admission playdate. Then we know that the parents are willing and able to work as a team with the school for the good of the child. It is a mistake to try to hide these types of things during the process.