Talk:Preschool

message: The previously existing content has been moved to Sangford Schools. Please do not overwrite redirects in future without a good reason. This content did not belong here. If it was an honest mistake then don't worry as it is fixed now. Regards, Colin MacLaurin 12:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: This article is oddly isolated from the Early Childhood Education, Day Care, and Nursery School articles. I got to it by starting at Nursery School (from the body of the Sesame Street article when it was the featured article), to Reggio Emilia (which my daughter's preschool is part of), to Preschool Education.
Seems that maybe rather than merging Nursery School and Day Care articles (currently under vote), it makes more sense to merge Nursery School with Preschool Education. At least have them both linked in to the Early Childhood Education article.
-- 71.111.151.138 07:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of this information may be useful on Child development, can someone who knows this area better look at both pages and align them a little. Thanks --Evolve2k 13:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The links for the areas listed are both broken. 104.238.32.93 (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacking the sources, I have reworded the section reflecting more the main areas accepted by the systems of England and of Scotland.  they are also roughly analogous to the 8 areas of the Victorian (Aus) CSFII. --Brideshead 17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Development areas

message: Your rude acerbic comment notwithstanding, American English (sic) is appropriate to the article in general as that was the original format in which the article was written.  In Australia, the term is Child Care Centres, Australian English.  We know how to spell perfectly well you... --Brideshead 09:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rude, confrontational comment

message: Please discuss at Talk:Nursery school#Merge with preschool education. BigNate37(T) 19:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[nursery school]] 

message: The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good preschool education resource.  
The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.
The preschool education / child care page of the site offers a wealth of early childhood education and preschool resource such as articles, research and practical advice for parents and professionals. These websites provide cost/benefit analyses and information on evaluating early childhood programs, information about child care, the transition to kindergarten and much more.
--Teamme 15:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request a link 

message: I think this section could use some citations from the works of Piaget, Vygotsky, or Erikson (among others) to make it sound more scholarly.  Thoughts?  Beatles970 (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Aspects of preschoolers abilities

message: I removed this piece of widely held and valid opinion that was added today, as in the current form it is not (in my opinion) in an encyclopedic tone, not verifiable.
:Preschool education importance is unrated.I think the most importantly preschool help young learners develop a sense of themselves. It must help the young learner develop asense of worth and knowing that they and their ideas, thoughts and questions are of value and important to others. If the young learners has a good sense of themselves than they will be open to explore math, science and social studies. The young learner who knows that they and their ideas are important will gain knowledge and contribute to ideas and learning concepts.
I hope the new user who wrote it is persistent, and discovers the type of article we are aiming for at Wikipedia.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate tone 

message: I removed a section on abilities.  it was made up of complete rubbish, unsourced nonsence with vague statements about what "they" like to do. i.e dance in pants  It has been tagged unsourced from early 2007.  --Brideshead (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Abilities

message: The section on Special Education was too scholarly. It has terms which would not make sense to an average reader, and it doesn't have to be that way for this topic. Trying to use a source from a Department of Education from one state in the United States was part of the problem.  I wrote a different section, but it's not perfect. Please give feedback. Academic Challenger (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Special education

message: I suggest the article Pre-kindergarten be merged with this one, as it covers almost exactly the same material but seems to be a relatively orphaned article otherwise. fat man rolling (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Pre-kindergarten]] 

message: Completely unnecessary to the subject. If I'm not mistaken, the relevance of a certain south park episode is completely pointless in the scope of this article and should be removed as a redirect on the top of the page. It's almost insulting to Wikipedia's articulacy to even suggest an episode to a pop phenomenon in an article like this.--71.196.232.231 (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park redirect suggestion? 

message: The mess lives on. I'd love feedback on organizing things in a way that respects national differences and separates educational matters, which remain under heavy dispute, at least in the US, from other aspects. Articles that cover the same subject should be merged. Thus:
*Early childhood education is about education stuff for  children from 3-5. Age appropriateness, effectiveness, teaching methods, etc.
::Complete - see below for details. Appropriate age cutoff seems to be more like 8.
* Infant education covers whatever education is possible for children younger than 3.
::Complete (this was in fact already is  redirect to Early childhood education which seems right - see below for details)
* Kindergarten is a disamb page that leads to Kindergarten in the United States, Kindergarten in Europe and as many other variants as there are interpretations of the word.
::Work in progress. The article is being kept with a focus on the educational theory behind the first Kindergartens. The country-by-country content will be moved to the relevant Education in xxx article. To be completed
* Nursery school becomes Preschool
::Work in progress. The content for Nursery school has now been merged into Preschool, however some integrated work is still need. See below for details.
* Preschool education merges into Preschool for national, organizational, funding and social aspects and Early childhood education for educational issues.
::Complete. See below for details 
* Preschool Curriculum merges into Early childhood education 
::Complete. See below for details
* Pre-kindergarten merges into Preschool
::Keep. This article is about a program specific to the USA and which won't easily integrate with any other articles. (see below)
Welcome your thoughts. Cheers.
-- Lfstevens (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done for attempting this sort of rationalisation, which is so important to the development of WP, but can be tricky to achieve. I am responding re Kindergarten below. I support your other recommendations. PeterEastern (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very concerned that this proposal has prompted so little discussion. I have left a further request for input on the talk pages of all of the articles mentioned above. I suggest that we give people at least a week to respond given the nature of the changes. To be clear, are you, Lfstevens, offering to do much of the work? I can assist, but can't take on the bulk of the work. PeterEastern (talk)
*Kindergarten article: I don't see any great value in splitting out 'Kindergarten in xxx county/region' articles as you suggest above. How about retaining a smaller focused smaller article with the current title covering the man who developed the concept, why he did so, what he was trying to achieve, who and what he was influenced by, and how his ideas and the term were adopted around the world. Also a new section on how his ideas compare to related educational ideas used across early years education, such as Montessori education? would probably be useful The Kindergarten approach should also be covered i sumary in the Early childhood education article. Regarding the 'country by country section', I would recommend merging this into the relevant 'Education in xxx country' articles, which may require the creation of a new section on 'pre-school education', which would be no bad thing. We could then retain a brief summary table in the Kindergarten article listing the countries where the term Kindergaren is used, the age range the term is used for (it varies) and the extent to which it follows the original Kindergarten philosophy now (which varies I understand). PeterEastern (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I have done a cleanup pass through this article, tightening up the scope of the article in the lead. A good cutoff seems to be at about eight. PeterEastern (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

text: This article is already a redirect to Early childhood education, which probably the right answer. PeterEastern (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

text: *Ready for someone to merge Preschool education over the 'Preschool' redirect who has authority. I don't! PeterEastern (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

text: *I have done the merge the manual way using cut and paste - seemed to be best to complete this work today due to risk of double redirects. PeterEastern (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

text: *After some research it turn out that 'Pre-K' is is educational program, sometimes with federal funding, that is delivered through preschool or a reception class at elementary school. I have clarified this in the article. PeterEastern (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

text: *Nursery school is actually also a term used in the USA, and seems to be pretty interchangable with Preschool. As such, I have now completed the initial merged of this article into Preschool education. I may however be appropriate to merge Pre-Kindergarten and Head Start Program now, as they are very closely related. PeterEastern (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

text: *After further investigation, I suggest that we keep both Pre-Kindergarten and Head Start Program in their current form as they won't easily merge give the different remits. PeterEastern (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorg proposal 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20121216013855/http://www.themontessorischoolrochester.com/dr-maria-montessori.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Dana boomer (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Japan NPOV issues 

message: While we all know about the negative reputation of the North Korean state, is it really necessary to add that one-sentence part on North Korea? It damages the neutrality and the overall tone of the article and is inconsistent as a in-depth unbiased discussion about North Korea's preschool system is expected highlighting its deficiencies and strengths. 
If there is nothing good and relevant to talk about the North Korean preschool system on this article maybe it should just be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.30.8 (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary North Korea content