Day care in newton ma: Artisan Childcare Center

37

We live very friendly

We play merrily and sing songs.

• Group day mode
  

  ---

• Regulation of educational activities
  

  ---

Group “Dandelion”

A secondary general education group for children 4-5 years old

Blog Group

Educators:

• Regulation of educational activities
  

  ---

Group “Klyukovka”0032

Sheina Lyubov Anatolyevna

Devis of the group:

“Merifily, S.

Smart books to read

Sing and dance together!”

• Day mode
  

  ---

• Regulation of educational activities “OUR GROUP APPLE IS OUR MAGIC GARDEN!

  THIS IS OUR KINGDOM – A KINGDOM FOR CHILDREN!”

  • Day mode
    

    ---

  • Regulation of educational activities
    

    ---

  Barberisk group

  Preparatory Group for children 6-7 years old

  Blog Group

  Junior teacher:

  Group motto

  • Daily routine
    

    ---

  • Regulation of educational activities
    

    ---

  Group “Brusnichka”

  Preparatory Group

  for children 6-7 years old

  Blog Blog

  047

  Group motto

  Though they are small,
  But they are as beautiful as lingonberries!

  • Day mode
    

    ---

  • Regulation of educational activities
    

    ---

  Group “Zemlyanichka”

  Preparatory general education group

  We are a mountain for each other, Here is our motto!”

  • Daily routine
  • Regulation of educational activities
    

    ---

  Group “Vishenka”

  Preparatory Group

  for children from 6-7 years old

  Blog Group

  0032

  GROUP MOTTO:

  We are ripe cherries! We live together!

  We draw, sculpt, play and sing.

  • Day mode
    

    ---

  • Regulation of educational activities
    

    ---

  Group “Ryabinka”

  Senior general education group for children 5-6 years old

  0032

  TOGETHER AS ON THE PICTURE –

  LIVE IN A FRIENDLY BUNCH!”

  • Regulation of educational activities
    

    ---

  Early childhood education

  When people talk about O. in r. they mean either nursery or preschool programs, and most often we are talking about children aged 3 to 5 years. However, some of the discussions on this issue cover the age range from infancy to entry into the kindergarten class. Such programs can. b. are focused both on home education and on the stay of the child in the day center, and the object of intervention can be. the child, his parent, or both. These programs may or may not integrate with the day care center environment.

  During the 1980s there was an expansion of the scope and possibilities for choosing the content of O. in the river. e. The content of the programs reflects the influence of theorists and researchers such as S. Freud, A. Gesell, J. Piaget, B. F. Skinner and Maria Montessori, although the impetus for the introduction and expansion of such programs was the work of D. O. Hebb, J. M. Hunt, B. Bloom, J. Bruner, etc. However, at present there is no agreement regarding the philosophy or methodology of early education.

  Bronfenbrenner concluded that the active participation of parents is a critical component of successful early intervention. He suggests focusing on 5 stages of this process, four of which relate to O. in the river. e.: a) preparation for motherhood / fatherhood; b) prenatal period: ensuring adequate physical. environment; c) child under 3 years of age: focusing on strengthening the parent-child bond and on the participation of parents in the home education program; d) Child’s age from 4 to 6 years: focus on the cognitive development of the child in the program of the day center, with the continued participation of parents in this process.

  There are several widespread models O. in river. e. Among them is the Engelmann-Becker model of the University of Oregon, which prioritizes the acquisition of specific skills through operant conditioning techniques. Dr. model – cognitive textbook. program (High / Scope), dev. Waycart in Yupsilanti, Michigan, on theories and research. Piaget. This also includes the open education model, dev. Heim in Newton (Massachusetts), in which he generalized the experience of teaching in British kindergartens; Bank Street Model, dev. in New York by Gilkson, a broad and holistic approach focused on the course of age development; dev. Nimnicht in the laboratory of Fa West in San Francisco, the response model (Responsive model), which allows the child to choose the pace of research. and development of the surrounding world, while the role of educators lies in timely reactions to the initiative of the child; and a model based on the Italian Montessori school, which involves the creation of a specially organized environment with an emphasis on self-care and caring for the child’s property, and includes work with materials that promote motor, sensory and language development, which is carried out in strict accordance with the teacher’s display.

  Most models generally agree on the need for more or less org-tion of learning, the use of play as the primary means of learning, reducing the proportion of children per teacher, and providing continuous teacher development and supervision. Models diverge, ch. arr., with regard to views on the child as a student, on the role of a teacher / educator and on the organization of the learning environment.

  A growing body of evidence is accumulating to support the effectiveness of early learning experiences, especially for children from families of low socioeconomic status. The effectiveness of such training has been shown both in relation to the current cognitive and socio-emotional development, and in relation to the subsequent decrease in learning. and social problems during schooling. A review of research by Caldwell shows that children’s day centers do not interfere with parent-child bonding and that attending such centers has a positive effect on the cognitive development of disadvantaged children and does not entail any negative consequences for the physical. child’s health.

  Conducted in 1969 and received a wide public response, the Westinghouse Study, which seemed to document the negligible effect of even a year’s participation of children in the Head Start program, was criticized by a number of researchers as inadequate in terms of the used methodology and incorrect in their conclusions. It is a common belief that highly structured programs produce the greatest positive changes in cognitive development in children from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, regardless of differences in the details of such programs. At the same time, children from middle-class families generally respond better to programs that provide a variety of experiences and encourage child initiative. However, creativity and initiative seem to be associated with more flexible programs for both economic groups.

  Of particular interest, in light of the criticism that emphasized the achievement of only short-term positive effects in programs for disadvantaged children, are the results of the Perry Preschool project and the report compiled by Lazar, Carnez, et al.