Talk:Preschool

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Merge with nursery school

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)

Merge the appropriate sections of Kindergarten into Elementary School

Perhaps, the Australia and New Zealand, Canada and United States sections.

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

China NPOV issues

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)

This section was entirely replaced by an IP editor who geolocates to Shanghai (and therefore might know more about the system than the average editor?) a couple of months after your comment.

Everything that you complained about is verifiable in the book that was cited in that section. It does seem that you are reading it through a cultural lens. For example, why do you think it's bad that the system cares more about the teacher–child relationship than peer relationships? On a global scale, "making friends" is something of an obsession with American parents, but much of the world, and much of history, would think that a mentoring relationship is more valuable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Japan NPOV issues

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:

• The section lacks a factual neutral description of Japanese preschools' goals and activities are.
• The descriptions pointing out the shortcomings of Japanese preschools are surely not universal, but they are presented as though they are.
• The whole section describes Japanese preschools, and Japanese society in general, from a very clearly Western perspective, pointing out differences in viewpoint in a way that makes it compare unfavorably to Western ideals.

--Bigpeteb (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the descriptions that points out any "shortcomings" of Japanese preschools. In fact, looking at that description with my Western viewpoint, I'd say that it looks pretty much like an ideal system to me. Lots of kids to play with, a mindset of inclusion and not leaving anybody out, supporting all kids towards the same goals (instead of leaving some to fail while encouraging others to soar), using non-drug and non-punitive means to manage difficulties, teaching emotional skills – what's not to like here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)