This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Education High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Schools Top‑importance This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

preschool is education for children aged between approx 2 and 6 depending on area. It is not child care it is structured education which preceded formal schooling i.e. primary 1, grade 1, preparatory, reception whatever you call it. Nursery or nursery school is encompased within the banner of pre-school education thus does not succeed it. -- Brideshead 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Preschool clearly means before school. A preschool is like a day care center or day nursery. ( 69.117.20.128 - Talk)

I agree, that is what my comment states I don't see your point, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Pre-school means before compulsary schooling and includes, nursery. -- Brideshead 12:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

The links for the areas listed are both broken. 104.238.32.93 ( talk) 18:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Looking it over once again, the introduction of this section seems to have very little to do with "Developmental Areas" and more to do with misleadingly interpreting research strongly in favor of preschool education. I would like a more experienced user to at least consider removing or cleaning up this introduction. The first source (Scottish Government) clearly states that the home environment is more important than preschool or elementary school (citing the OECD). The next two sources are basically advocacy groups trying to institute the "Perry Preschool" method nationwide (U.S.). Again I would appreciate if this section was brought up to encyclopedic standards. 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm new to this editing thing, and a liberal slant seems to be de rigueur on Wikipedia, but is the National Association of Child Advocates really a reliable source? Clearly their "research" is geared toward getting more funding (and jobs) for preschool education. I think the beginning of this section is too strongly worded in favor of the benefits of preschool, or at least needs to cite another source besides an advocacy group. I further examined the source research and it stated that " 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)The study found that the home environment and the relationship between mother and child seem to have the greatest influence on children's outcomes" I believe this should be included somehow if we are going to have an honest presentation of the subject. Even the most favorable research clearly states that the home environment is far more important than preschool. 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I further checked the second link, to "American Radio Works" which was an informal article about "Perry Preschool." This is clearly not a source up to encyclopedic standards, especially one that "is important" to Wikipedia's mission. I didn't drop it because I know I would get overruled but I believe that someone with more experience on these matters should clean this section up. Is Wikipedia an online encyclopedia or is it a way for left wing advocacy groups to disseminate information as fact. Saying preschool improves outcomes is fine, but it should accurately portray the cited research, and the citations should be up to Wikipedia standards, that is all I ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Once again, I checked the first source, and a direct quote from that source "The recent OECD review of quality and equity of schooling highlights the huge influence of social circumstances on educational attainment in Scotland. Other UK research highlights that the home learning environment in the early years is the largest factor in attainment and achievement at age 10, bigger even than the effect of pre-school and primary school." If anything, this source seems to be undermining the importance of preschool. I suggest that someone with editing experience makes this section more honest. The other two sources are advocating the "Perry Preschool" method and this whole section is leaning toward outright partisan advocacy rather than neutral analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.221.247.94 ( talk) 16:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Where have these 3 areas come from? What about aesthetic development, what about Knowledge and understanding of the world? If these are some kind of overiding influential areas accepted by the wider academic community then they will have to be sourced. As it stands they are worthless. -- Brideshead 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Please discuss at Talk:Nursery school#Merge with preschool education. BigNate37 _(T) 19:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

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) reply

The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good preschool education resource. [1]

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Preschool does NOT include kindergarten, at least not in American English. 76.219.170.8 ( talk) 22:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Kindergarten is for pre-school children throughout Europe, though the term is not used in every country. Dahliarose ( talk) 23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Someone has just proposed again that we should merge Kindergarten into Preschool education. I disagree. The articles are not equivalent in content. More importantly to me, the article has a valuable and distinct style of listing kindergarten services by country. That is different from describing the broad concept. I would accept a renaming of Kindergarten though. -- Rixs ( talk) 16:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The current Kindergarten article should be merged with the Preschool article because it is mistitled (for an English-language article). As the opening paragraph of Kindergarten shows, the word "kindergarten" is not used in English-speaking countries (i.e., in English) to describe "education for young children which serves as a transition from home to the commencement of more formal schooling" Doremo ( talk) 10:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The introduction to the kindergarten article probably needs rewriting but I disagree that it should be merged with pre-school. It appears that in the US kindergarten has a different meaning from that used in Europe and it is part of the school system there. There does therefore need to be an article to accommodate the US meaning. Dahliarose ( talk) 12:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

If "in Europe" means outside the UK, then the article Kindergarten is mistitled because it is incorrect in normal American, British, Canadian, and Australian English. The title Kindergarten is correct as a German word, but not as an English word for the topic discussed in the article, and thus inappropriate for an English article on that topic. Doremo ( talk) 16:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Incidentally, continental European education experts (at least those with decent copy editors) also use "preschool" to describe the educational institution between home and formal schooling (e.g., http://www.v-ormoz.mb.edus.si/files/Lesnik_Marjanovic_kakovost_predsolske_vzgoje.PDF) Doremo ( talk) 16:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Hi Doremo - do you mean that 'Kindergarten' is not an English Word? - I know that it is German, but I always thought it was English too. We use it in Australia (I think we use it almost as a synonym of pre-school). We also have the colloquialism 'Kindy'.
• I don't have an opinion on if it should be merged or not, but perhaps a section that describes the different meanings in different countries? cheers -- Boy.pockets ( talk) 03:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Hi. Just to add more to the mix, both the Kindergarten and Pre-school articles really should be joined under the Early childhood education article. Therefore, I think it makes sense in each of these articles to heavily reference the other articles, even if they are not joined. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't know about Australian usage firsthand (I based my comment on other readers' contributions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindergarten). "Kindergarten" is an English word, but in American English and Canadian English (and apparently much Australian English) it refers to the first year of elementary school, not preschool education. The British apparently do not use the word to refer to their preschools either. It is also a German word (referring to preschool education), but it makes no sense to give an English article on preschool education (or early childhood education) a German title. Doremo ( talk) 16:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I am loosing the thread of this conversation now, but some further information from me:

• Australia refers to the first year of elementary school (primary school) as Kindergarten. But I still think that it is used interchangeably for preschool too. But I don't have any references.
• I don't have a problem with the article being named Kingergarten on the basis that it is a German word. As you point out it is also an English word (though German in origin). There are other examples of where we use German words in Wikipedia titles ( Hamburger is probably the best example). However, I think that you are also suggesting that the title is not accurate (nothing to do with the origins of the word now). So in this way, you may have a case.

-- Boy.pockets ( talk) 02:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, the title of the "Kindergarten" article is inaccurate. The article is about preschool education, but most (or almost all) English speakers do not use the word "kindergarten" to refer to preschool (or early childhood) education. It has nothing to do with etymology. (Hamburger is not a good example; parallel examples would be if Wikipedia listed famous Viennese residents under "Wiener", or bookstores under "Library".) Doremo ( talk) 04:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

To be clear - I was using Hamburger as an example of English words with German origins. I read your comments as saying that because it was a German word, it should not be used as a title in Wikipedia. For this case Hamburger is a good example. Although it appears we are arguing about different topics. Reading back over your comments, I think I misunderstood your argument: I think you are saying that the German title for this article is accurate, but using the same word in English is inaccurate. Also, I found a reference about Australian usage - but it is only a wikipedia reference so I am not sure how accurate it is: Kindergarten#Australia_and_New_Zealand -- cheers -- Boy.pockets ( talk) 06:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry if I was unclear; "hamburger" and "kindergarten" are both good English words. The difference is that WP is using "hamburger" as a title in its English meaning (cooked patty of ground meat) whereas "kindergarten" is currently being used as a title in its German meaning, not its English meaning. If the article were written in German, "kindergarten" would be a good title. Doremo ( talk) 08:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

While I agree that in American English, we now use kindergarten in a 'narrow sense,' I disagree that this means we should get rid of this article. This being an encyclopedia, it should cover uses of the term in a encyclopedic fashion (that is, broadly). This is true for many reasons. First, because differences in the use of the term can be (and are) noted in the article and can be further clarified. (For example Canadians and Australians don't use the term in the exact same sense as Americans). Second, because kindergarten's broader meaning is how it was used in the United States in the 19th and early 20th century and it is important for Americans reading about the early kindergarten movement in the United States to understand this. Third, it is important for American's reading about kindergarten in other countries to understand how they use the term (as it is important for people in other countries to understand how Americans use the term). Also, you are incorrect concerning the relationship between early childhood education and kindergarten in the US. Kindergarten is a subset of early childhood education, as shown by the fact that US teachers licensed in Early Childhood Education may teach classes from Pre-K through third grade. These are the years when a child is expected to transition from pre-literate to fully literate. Which brings me to my final point, in both America and the rest of the world kindergarten generally means pre-literate and very early emergent-literate education. Whereas, historically, "education" meant literacy. In the US, this did not, and still does not occur, generally and formally, until first grade, after kindergarten. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The point is that the Kindergarten article is mistitled, not that it should be gotten rid of (but merger is probably a good idea). If the Kindergarten (i.e., preschool/early childhood education) article were written in 19th-century English (for a 19th-century audience) then it would be ok to title it Kindergarten. As it is, no native English speaker seems to use the word "kindergarten" to refer to preschool education. It's got nothing to do with American English; British speakers also do not refer to their preschools (nursery schools) as kindergartens. In the US, kindergarten is the first year of primary school (that's why they refer to K-12 education, not 1-12 education). In brief:

• Preschool: children attend prechool for multiple years before starting formal education; it generally does not take place at the primary school and is generally not required.
• Kindergarten: this is a one-year program in US English; it generally takes place in the same building where the children continue with 1st and later grades and is generally a prerequisite for continuing to 1st grade. Doremo ( talk) 13:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Except you are wrong about the US. In many places Pre-K classes do take place in the same building as K-3, K-5, K-6 or K-8 classes. Formal education in the US does often take place in pre-schools, and in many US states kindergarten is not required, at all. As an encyclopedic article, it better cover the past, as well as the present. Moreover, as an article entitled, "kindergarten" it better cover different uses of the term, kindergarten. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

If there are any native-English speaking communities where preschool (nursery, pre-primary school) education is referred to as "kindergarten" I'd be eager to hear about it. Doremo ( talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

In Canada, Kindergarten is used for classes for 4 year olds. In the US it is not used for a class of 4 year olds, that's preschool or nurseryschool or Pre-K. Also, as Boy pockets already pointed out to you, many Australians use the word interchangeably with pre-school. Finally, the article is entitled "Kindergarten" not "English uses of the term Kindergarten." Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

If English-speakers use "kindergarten" to refer to an institution that "Children usually attend ... any time between the ages of two and seven years" then the article title is legitimate. If they do not, then it is an inappropriate article title. Perhaps "pre-K" would be another label to consider. Doremo ( talk) 16:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

At the risk of covering the same ground, it is not inappropriate for English speakers to note that there is more then one way the word is used and it is highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia NOT to note that there is more than one way the word is used. At any rate, some English speakers, according to the article, do use kindergarten in its broadest sense. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

See new thread below -- Boy.pockets ( talk) 05:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

This thread follows on from #Merge Kindergarten into Preschool education.

First, good work; for a thread that has lasted so long, the discussion has been pretty good. I have been looking further into the two articles ( Kindergarten and Preschool education), but I am not convinced that we will be able to do much good without looking at the related articles at the same time. So I guess I am saying, that whatever the outcome of the merge discussion (merge, or no merge), there should be a general tidy up of the early childhood education articles. Important articles to clean up (IMO & in no particular order):

• Early childhood education
• Infant education
• Kindergarten
• Nursery school
• Preschool education
• Preschool Curriculum
• Pre-kindergarten

In the process of doing this, I think it will help with the merge debate. It would be nice to get some help on this. Some first steps would be to make some draft a synopsis for each of these articles. Not really sure how to go about all this. Perhaps some people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Education?

-- Boy.pockets ( talk) 05:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• The intro to the Kindergarten article currently indicates that the term is not used to refer to "transition from home to the commencement of more formal schooling" in American, British, Canadian, or (much) Australian English. It would be helpful if somebody added a note to the Kindergarten article on which varieties of English do refer to preschool education programs as "kindergarten". I can't because I have no firsthand data on such varieties. Doremo ( talk) 07:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi! I'm not from any English speaking country, but here is my take on kindergarten vs. preschool, from my cultural context (I'm from Norway). We use the direct translation of the term kindergarten for early childhood education from ages 0-6, but it was not until quite recently that kindergarten became part of the educational system, and I wonder if this might be true elsewhere too. We have in the last 10-20 years seen an international convergence in early childhood education. US preschools are less different from Norwegian or Danish kindergartens today, than they were 10 years ago. This has to do with a broader definition of learning, and a surge of quality research on child development, especially in the field of neuroscience, in the last 20 years.

To summarise: I think the term kindergarten used to have more in common with day care than preschool, today however, I think the terms are more or less synonymous. The nomenclature in this field is a mess, and the kindergarten article is a big mess too. I'm leaning toward a merge

-- Kindergarten ped ( talk) 00:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I haven't looked at this page for a while but I agree it is now a complete mess. I would suggest that a page should be retained for kindergarten which would deal mainly with the history of kindergartens. It could then look at the usage of the word in countries where the term is still used which I think is mainly in North America and presumably still in Germany. I would then suggest that all the more general content relating to pre-school education in various countries which don't use the word kindergarten should be moved to the appropriate page or pages. Preschool education is probably the most appropriate target. I see no need for pages on Infant education and Preschool Curriculum and would have thought this content could be merged with Preschool education. I also wonder about the need for a page on Pre-kindergarten. I do wonder too about the need for a page on Early childhood education which is a very broad concept and not a term which is generally used in education, in the UK at least. Dahliarose ( talk) 19:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• There's really no need to. I think it just has no purpose they are two years apart and have different content as some other people claim Theres no need to merge the two together - Gertie1999 ( talk) 14:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Gertie1999 :O) reply
• Don't see a merge as beneficial. At the risk of repeating what's already been said, in the U.S., "preschool" is much broader than "Kindergarten". In the U.S., preschools are generally not part of taxpayer-funded, state- and federally mandated education ("public education"). Teachers for Kindergarten in the U.S. must go through the same formal accreditation process that teachers of elementary school do (that is, they need a degree in education from a university), but I don't think this is true of teachers of preschool in general, whose training and accreditation may vary widely. A preschool offers a more-or-less structured play/learning environment for children from birth up to or including Kindergarten. A preschool may have a Kindergarten class, or may not, because the accreditation for a Kindergarten is different from a "preschool" childcare facility in general. Kindergarten is specifically the year-long curriculum preparatory for first grade, though some children may do two years of Kindergarten, depending on their age and maturity. As pointed out above, designations such as K-12 (the full range of a child's public education as required by the state) or K-6 for elementary school (primary school) point to Kindergarten being a formal part of the tiered, year-by-year education system. Preschool is not required by law, and preschools are usually private (or religious) and tuition-based; a legal requirement for Kindergarten varies by state, I think, but depending on your school district, public Kindergarten is usually offered free, full or half-day, at a public elementary school. (This distinction by funding may be strange to our European editors, who are from a more civilized part of the world.) So it would seem confused to me to have both treated in the same article, though each article would make complementary reference to the other. Cynwolfe ( talk) 20:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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) reply

• A merge with Pre-kindergarten would not work. In most countries outside of North America kindergarten is part of pre-school education and there is therefore no such thing as pre-kindergarten. Dahliarose ( talk) 13:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Agree. Pre-kindergarten and preschool are essentially synonymous. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures| Drsaraheaton ( talk) 02:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)]] comment added by Drsaraheaton ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Agree. It is less confusing to have information related to Instructional theory for one age located on one page. 65.190.196.45 ( talk) 18:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply
• Early childhood education: Can I suggest we avoid a firm age cutoff to this article, possibly the more natural cutoff would be the age at which compulsory eduction starts. In the UK this is at about five, but I know that in Germany it is later. The distinction might also be better early 'play' oriented education and more structured education learning. Not sure how this holds up around the world, but it could be reasonably robust. PeterEastern ( talk) 04:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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) reply

• Infant education: The word 'education' seems out-of-place if we are talking about an age range up to 3? Up to that age is in not more about Child care with some semi-structured activities where appropriate. Possibly Infant childcare world be better - however, I am way out of my area of expertise here! PeterEastern ( talk) 04:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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

• Preschool Curriculum. I have now merged the content from this into Early childhood education. PeterEastern ( talk) 16:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• 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) reply
• 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) reply

• Possibly it would be more useful to adjust the scope of ' Pre-kindergarten to cover preschool education in the United States and Nursery school to cover preschool in the UK. In both cases the articles seem pretty localised already. The titles of these articles could then be reviewed in a national context. Both would reference Preschool education as the internationalised article. PeterEastern ( talk) 04:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• 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) reply
• 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) reply
• 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) reply

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary: When we discuss this reorganisation, given that much of the ealier discussion seems to be centered around what words mean in different countries, we should remember that WP has a clear policy ( WP:NAD) that articles should be able subjects with one article about each subject. For sure it is worth knowing what terms are used around the world in the process of choosing a title, and understand that part of the confusion has been as a result of the diversity of terms used, and the different uses of the term 'Kindergarten' around the world, but lets resolve it soon. PeterEastern ( talk) 04:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Possibly also worth noting issues of Diversity of contribution to WP: Some 90% of contributors to WP are mem (including me), [2] compared to 12% of teachers in UK primary schools. [3] I believe that we should encourage a greater diversity of contribution to WP. Here is a interesting article on why women don't edit WP (in their own words). [4] PeterEastern ( talk) 04:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply