So most of Naomi's classmates, including her cousin, are enrolling in "Pre-K" this fall. If you couldn't already guess, Pre-K is geared towards kindergarten preparedness, whereas "regular" preschool is . . . I guess . . . not. I couldn't pin the Director to articulate exactly what the difference is between the two. In any event, however, her advice is Naomi should go Pre-K.
The most obvious difference to me is Pre-K is offered five days a week, whereas Naomi goes three.
First, I don't think I'm ready to let my little baby be away from the home 5 days a week. She'll be thrust into that heartless M-5 8-3 soon enough, and won't break those chains for 12 more years, (then +/- 4 years of college bliss) and then the M-F 8-6 grind as a worker bee. Kids should stay kids as long as possible.
Second, I reduced my work schedule to spend more time with my children. It would be just too weird to see even less of her each week before absolutely necessary.
Third, the thought of shelling out an additional $1400 (over the otherwise exorbitant amount too horrible to utter here) is killing me.
The Director thinks Naomi would benefit from Pre-K because it will help her "come out of her shell". Apparently Naomi is a perfect little angel at school. Very well-behaved, sits quietly and waits her turn, doesn't push or cut in line, and follows directions very well. This is great, right? Well apparently these aren't the survival skills she'll need in a public school kindergarten class of 20 kids from all demographics and backgrounds, including boys who bounce off walls and crunch glass in between doses of ritalin. According to the Director, Naomi might get lost in the shuffle if she doesn't learn how to assert herself, speak up, etc.
At home Naomi is certainly very assertive. Indeed, BOSSY is the best word to describe her. When we get together with other kids Naomi loves to be the General, instructing everyone to play their part in her world.
When I take her to gymnastics, however, she's extremely clingy to me and reluctant to join the others. She refused to participate in ballet class because there is no parent involvement (we sit on the other side of the glass, like at the zoo). I've never observed her in preschool because there is no 2-way mirror (yes, many schools have these) and so of course she would behave differently when I'm in the room. The bottom line is I don't know whether to believe the Director, who has been doing this for 20+ years, or to label this very kind woman with the ulterior motive of squeezing out a few more bucks.
Money aside, however:
ONE: Am I ready to let my darling go 5 days before I absolutely must?
TWO: Will Pre-K really do a better job of preparing her to succeed in kindergarten?
THREE (and perhaps most important): Is this one of these questions that generates way more anxiety than warranted? I'm thinking back on past agonies such as "should I risk nipple confusion by offering a pacifier?", "stroller with cup holder, or with snack tray?" , and other decisions that seemed so critical at the time but looking back were a complete waste of time and energy. Especially with the perspective of having kid #2.
My intuition is telling me to relax and send her 3 days. She's smart: she'll figure out kindergarten the way we all did -- the hard way.
All comments appreciated. Preferably by March 15, when I have to turn in my form.
The most obvious difference to me is Pre-K is offered five days a week, whereas Naomi goes three.
First, I don't think I'm ready to let my little baby be away from the home 5 days a week. She'll be thrust into that heartless M-5 8-3 soon enough, and won't break those chains for 12 more years, (then +/- 4 years of college bliss) and then the M-F 8-6 grind as a worker bee. Kids should stay kids as long as possible.
Second, I reduced my work schedule to spend more time with my children. It would be just too weird to see even less of her each week before absolutely necessary.
Third, the thought of shelling out an additional $1400 (over the otherwise exorbitant amount too horrible to utter here) is killing me.
The Director thinks Naomi would benefit from Pre-K because it will help her "come out of her shell". Apparently Naomi is a perfect little angel at school. Very well-behaved, sits quietly and waits her turn, doesn't push or cut in line, and follows directions very well. This is great, right? Well apparently these aren't the survival skills she'll need in a public school kindergarten class of 20 kids from all demographics and backgrounds, including boys who bounce off walls and crunch glass in between doses of ritalin. According to the Director, Naomi might get lost in the shuffle if she doesn't learn how to assert herself, speak up, etc.
At home Naomi is certainly very assertive. Indeed, BOSSY is the best word to describe her. When we get together with other kids Naomi loves to be the General, instructing everyone to play their part in her world.
When I take her to gymnastics, however, she's extremely clingy to me and reluctant to join the others. She refused to participate in ballet class because there is no parent involvement (we sit on the other side of the glass, like at the zoo). I've never observed her in preschool because there is no 2-way mirror (yes, many schools have these) and so of course she would behave differently when I'm in the room. The bottom line is I don't know whether to believe the Director, who has been doing this for 20+ years, or to label this very kind woman with the ulterior motive of squeezing out a few more bucks.
Money aside, however:
ONE: Am I ready to let my darling go 5 days before I absolutely must?
TWO: Will Pre-K really do a better job of preparing her to succeed in kindergarten?
THREE (and perhaps most important): Is this one of these questions that generates way more anxiety than warranted? I'm thinking back on past agonies such as "should I risk nipple confusion by offering a pacifier?", "stroller with cup holder, or with snack tray?" , and other decisions that seemed so critical at the time but looking back were a complete waste of time and energy. Especially with the perspective of having kid #2.
My intuition is telling me to relax and send her 3 days. She's smart: she'll figure out kindergarten the way we all did -- the hard way.
All comments appreciated. Preferably by March 15, when I have to turn in my form.
5 comments:
I would trust your original judgement--to wait. If you thought it was worth it and that it would really benefit your daughter, you would come up with the money somehow.
Trust your judgment. It's the best barometer. I'm so tempted to do the "when I was a kid, walking in the snow" thing, but hey, it's true. Naomi is very smart. You are the BEST judge of her needs and most everyone I know did just fine without pre-K or even pre. Enjoy her being your baby girl.
Thank you, friends, for your true words. T
I would think having a second term of pre-school will be more important for development than whether that second term is for five days a week or three. I guess the idea is that if she spends more time away from home, she'll get more detached from home? And this is something you should pay money for?!
Kids are like microwaved baked potatoes - rarely does overdoing it pay dividends. (OK, it's pretty clear that I could have used a couple more years of pre-Kindergarten)
My helpful comment? I'm darn glad I'm not a parent! Seriously, it's kinda fascinating to get this insight because I know there are a million and one such parenting decisions made on a daily basis, and while kids aren't so fragile that one wrong decision or misstep is going to cause irreparable harm - how in the heck DOES one make such decisions? I guess the best one can!
Anyway, glad I checked back to do a little catch-up - being new to the blog universe, somehow I thought there'd be a magical email telling me each time there was something new. :)
Miss you!
Post a Comment