Education and Being a Good Mom

I need to not be blogging right now, but this has been bugging me and I just have to get it out there. After this I will get back to my regularly scheduled life.

I want to start a music class/pre-school for 2 1/2- 3 year olds. I want to do it to get my kids in some kind of structured music environment and also make a little extra money. I want to do 2-3 year olds because there really isn't much out there for them in terms of preschool and I think some parents want/need it. E turned 3 in October, so there you go.

I talked to a friend today who also does a pre-school. She is a dear woman whom I adore and admire. Talking to her today, however we got in a bit of a disagreement. I feel bad about it, but still think that I am right. The debate was whether or not parents would want to be away from their 2 year olds for four hours a week. Here's how it went down:

She: I just wouldn't want to be away from my 2 year old that much a week. You're a stay-at-home mom for a reason-- what would be the point if you are going to send them off for four hours a week?

Me: I see what you are saying, but I think it is only your opinion. When I had my postpartum depression, I would have loved to have four hours away, because I had such a hard time handling my life.

Okay, so it was close to that. But here's the thing, and you may or may not agree, I do much better as a mom when I have time away from my kids. (Naptime does not count.) Not necessarily because I need the "me time" but more because when I am absent from the children for an hour or two, I miss them a little. When I get back I appreciate them more--I play with them more. When they are with me all the time (maybe this makes me a bad mom) it's easy to sort of ignore them and let them do their own thing. So for me, if I had four hours a week away from E (or even S at her wee 15 months) I would be in Heaven, and I guarantee they would get way more quality time with mom.

Okay, so the other thing is this-- my friend's preschool curriculum doesn't focus on academics at all. It focuses mainly on social skills and I think that is really cool. Rock on. However, her reasoning is this: why teach them the alphabet when they are just going to learn it in kindergarten? This attitude I take issue with.

My son knew his alphabet and all his numbers by age 2. At three he knows upper case, lower case, and most of the sounds they make. In this I think he is somewhat exceptional,and he mostly learned it by his own choice, but as a parent I am concerned that his education challenge him enough. Saying that "they'll just learn it in kindergarten" sort of dumbs things down a bit, don't you think? Shouldn't we say, "let's teach it now, and hold our education system to a higher standard"? I think American schools don't expect enough of children as it is.

My friend Andrea is sending her daughter to a private school because her daughter Et, at four year old struggled with her alphabet-- mostly that she was not interested in it. Now at 5, in kindergarten, she is reading. Isn't that great? Andrea is going to start sending her son to the same school because he is not doing as well in our public education system.

Now, being that I cannot afford private school, I might send my chickadees to a charter school. Andrea doesn't like the idea of charter schools, because she doesn't want to have to be involved. Her reasoning, which I also don't agree with, is that teachers go to school so they can be educators, so that she can send her children to school and let them be taught by the experts. But shouldn't we be involved as parents in the education of our children? Her not wanting to help out is because she has another young child, but I don't know. I would still want to be involved-- hey maybe while she volunteers at her kid's school, she could bring her two year old to my school. There you go. Four hours a week. Very useful.

Am I way out there?

NANOWRIMO count: 19631