Talk:Kindergarten

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 1930s

Did they have to pay for kindergarten in the 1930's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.60.244.130 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 April 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Description

Not sure what a description of the first years of schooling in different countries is doing under Kindergarten as this is a specialised kind of school and should be seperated from early schooling in general. -Octopussy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octopussy (talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hutterites

I was reasonably certain the Hutterites invented kindergarten.--T. Anthony 10:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too culturally specific?

This page seems very strange to me - the term kindergarten seems quite USA specific (apart from Germany obviously) and this page seems designed to explain the rest of the world to a USA audience. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have a page with a more neutral term, like 'pre-school education' or 'education for very young children' with kindergarten as a page more specific to the USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.248.43 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-sequitur?

From the article: "He coined the term Kindergarten in 1840 to mark the four hundredth anniversary of the invention of movable type by Gutenberg." What does the term have to do with Gutenberg, moveable type or 400 years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.163.36 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is a feeble attempt to quote the copyright material on Froebel Web at http://www.froebelweb.org/webline.html. The actual quote is "To mark the four hundredth anniversary of Gutenberg's discovery of movable type, 28 June 1840, Froebel officially opened the first Kindergarten." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.133.140 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] introduction

I made some changes to the introduction which was grammaticaly weak and completely disregarded kindergarten/early childhood education in the entire rest of the world outside of the US. --Brideshead 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not neutral. In the United States, nursery school is for children not old enough to attend Kindergarten. This is not a worldwide view. (69.117.20.128 - Talk) 01:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It is neutral because it references US usage and usage in other countries. It makes it clear that it is for the education of young children (3-6) and learning is focussed on play. If you think it does not acurately represent the US version of kindergarten then rectify that, however the word is used differently elsewhere and this needs to be reflected in the intro. --Brideshead 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't references US usage at all. Says here [1] I am reverting that...because it doesn't reflect US definitions. (209.177.21.6 - Talk) 20:41, 16 March (UTC)

[edit] Not required?

Prekindergarten is not required. So is Kindergarten also not required? (69.117.20.128 - talk) 18:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats a bit debatable since kindergarten is described as a transition period into more formal and compulsory school. I wont pretend I have facts or am an expert but I think that it is required to let kids be kids and at the same time be able to interact with other children in a controlled environment. --38.104.129.90 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable Description of Korean Kindergarten

In the 'Kindergarten Activities' section there is evidence cited for why kindergarten should avoid didactic academic instruction. The following claim that 'kindergarten programs in South Korea successfully incorporate much academic instruction' is supported by no such evidence. Also lacking supporting evidence is the following description that:

"The goal of the teacher [Korean kindergarten teacher] is to overcome weak points in each child's knowledge or skills."

I fail to see how this is particular comment a.) belongs under the subheading 'Kindergarten Activities' and b.) since it lacks evidence, is different from the optimistic musing of a school's promotional material. 211.219.147.79 12:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs cleanup

The list of random article citations is useless. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information. If useful information can be gleaned from the citations and brought into the article (with the citations used as references), please do so. Otherwise, get rid of the citation list.

See Wikipedia official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar 08:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please give some examples from this Wikipedia article, which may serve to illustrate your claim, please? Thank you in advance. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (18062007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.148.64.213 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I am referring to the article's Section 3, "Readings," which merely lists a bunch of articles. If I wanted to read a bibliography or mere compilation of articles about kindergarten, I can pull a bibliography on education topics at the public library which will have hundreds of such citations. The content of the articles pointed to by the citations needs to be drawn into this article directly in order to be useful. See my work on Lawyer for an example of how to weave together a large number of disparate sources into a (mostly) coherent article. That's encyclopedic-style writing. --Coolcaesar 07:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empty sections for each country

I'm removing all these useless empty sections on the situation in countries around the world. The tag will stay, but having so many headers is useless. --MathiasRav 18:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-organisation

I've had a go at re-doing this page. The article seemed to suggest that the US usage of the word kindergarten as the first year of school was the predominant usage rather than something which appears to be specific to the US and Canada. (I've added a reference to support the view that in most countries kindergarten equates to pre-school). I wonder if it might perhaps be best to have a separate article for kindergarten in North America. Much of the material, eg, the long reading list, is US-specific and doesn't really belong in a general article on kindergarten. I'm also not sure if much of the material for the various countries actually belongs here as it relates to pre-school education rather than the specific use of the word kindergarten.Dahliarose 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no criticism?

No criticism of all this early education? Surely somebody out there has something to say against making human beings into cogs this early. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Better than not teaching them to be obedient, and having them wind up in Abu Ghraib —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmmtmmmm (talk • contribs) 20:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age

How about AGE! What is the age range and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.35.160.134 (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced POV statements about conformity

The comments about Kindergarten being essentially a training camp for conformity aren't WP:NPOV, and certainly aren't sourced. They should not be added without a reliable, neutral source for the information. Torc2 (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

While I tend to agree with some of what Mmmmtmmmm is saying, these asseretions should be attributable to a third party through an inline reference. The editorial aspects of Mmmmtmmmm's contributions drift to far into expressing a POV; WP is not the right forum for political editorial. I think that Torc has acted appropriately, and Mmmmtmmmm should discuss further changes here at the talk page. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)