Facebook
Twitter
Email Sign-Up
RSS FeedIt’s Not JUST about Sexualization
Today’s New York Times has an article about Kumon academic “enrichment” programs for preschoolers. At best, the article concludes, they are useless. At worst, they undermine kids’ love of learning.
I wrote a piece about this trend–accelerated academics among preschoolers and kindergartners–in the New York Times Magazine in 2009. It was called Kindergarten Cram. I am adamantly against accelerated kindergarten and preschool–and research backs me up. Sometimes I don’t know whether I’m liberal, conservative or just radical on these issues, but my core philosophy is that kids should be allowed to be KIDS as long as possible and that we need to push back against everything in this culture that imposes traits that are beyond their years–whether it’s sexualization, mind-numbing computer games, massively licensed products that co-opt their imagination, flash card drills or daily homework. They only have a few years in which they can simply play. The internally-driven creativity, fantasy play, imagination of small children is a precious resource and should be cultivated for its own sake, not to create some super-kid who is smarter/faster/earns more money. It’s about “enriching” their HUMANITY not their elementary school grades.
Play, draw, read, go for walks, stare at ants, climb, jump, pretend….Repeat (for as long as possible).
I especially love Alliance for Childhood on these issues.
Also Alfie Kohn, a voice of reason in education. And Howard Gardner at Project Zero
I couldn’t agree more and have written on this for years as well. I’m an educational psychologist, consultant, former teacher and school administrator…and a mom. Why do people still not get it??!! There are plenty of reasons, written by you, myself and so may others, and yet the competition continues and the kids are the ones losing. I did a lot of admissions work in my career, and once ran a PS – Grade 8 private school, and simply got to the point where I was 100% unapologetic about this philosophy, and entirely comfortable delivering my favorite line: “I feel we are a good match for Johnny, but I’m concerned we may not be a good match for you.” I was perfectly fine with parents leaving the school, or not enrolling, because they disagreed with letting kids be kids.The whole thing is just SAD!
When I’m not working as a cancer-kicking super hero, my day job is an educational researcher. And I back you on this 100%.
You are a woman after my own heart….
Yes, yes, YES. Def akin to the “Race to Nowhere” film for the pre-K set.
Another really good early childhood edu piece along these lines is Lisa Guernsey’s piece in HuffPo this week “Learning to Read: How Young is Too Young” http://j.mp/jLAp4V
Thanks for pointing that out! I love David Elkind, too.
They screened Race to Nowhere at Daisy’s school earlier this year (and actually they did the sound editing down the hall from my husband’s film company in Berkeley). Here’s a link to the film for those who are interested. http://www.racetonowhere.com/
And everyone was duly upset by what was being foisted on kids but what to do about it? How to say NO? Especially once kids are in high school. I feel we have it in check now, but it seems to get trickier and trickier….
Saw that. In Finland kids don’t learn to read until age 7!
Precisely why my kiddos are in a Montessori school. Our neighbors alternately complain that their kids have too much time taken in the evenings with endless worksheets and express dismay that our kids have none.
And I second the praise of Alfie Kohn. I got to hear him speak this spring. Excellent work there.
Me too. Daisy’s school has Montessori roots and still very strong on that philosophy including no homework (and having Alfie K. speak…).
I was so dismayed when I read that article this morning.
Normally, I have sympathy for the pressures parents undergo, but in this case I don’t. The parents profiled aren’t clueless; they are educated themselves, are affluent enough to have choices, and yet are still willing to rob their children of the few brief years in their lives when they DON’T have to be tethered to the world of abstract symbols.
It’s especially disturbing that they are coming from progressive preschools. In NYC, preschool spots are scarce (not to mention pricy). If you don’t believe in the school’s philosophy, why take up one of its precious spots? Is it just for social cachet? Blecch!
Finally, my experience with my own kids matches what the research suggests. The early readers in my kids’ classes are not necessarily the best readers now. I wouldn’t be surprised if one of my daughters, who has thought like an engineer for as long as I can remember, invented something amazing. But, guess what? She’s been known to make careless math mistakes–which probably means she won’t get the highest possible standardized test scores. Am I worried? No. It’s hard for me to imagine that when she gets a job that her ingenuity and determination will go unnoticed. Her ability to get along with others will surely trump her SAT scores…
I think parents want what seems “best” for their kids but sometimes pushing them to achieve beyond their developmental readiness or teaching them that success is defined from without by others AND very narrowly is not what’s “best” for them, at least for their mental health and long-term well-being.
And in that way, I think there are some interesting analogies to be made with early, inappropriate sexualization and obsession with beauty/body issues–especially the idea of being defined from the outside by an unattainable set of standards.
Here’s an interview with Joseph Chilton Pearce that says it all”
http://vimeo.com/22260894
i completely agree! kids nowadays are being so pressured by everything around them. what parents are forgetting is that in life there is time for everything, i mean, there will be a time when the kids will be pressured by studies, and to get good grades and so, why does this ‘academic race’ will have to start at such a tender age? parents are supposed to focus more on the socialising of their children, playing together, learning to share and so.
I don’t think that it’s fair to say that kids shouldn’t be taught to read early. I taught myself to read at age 3 with the aid of books on tape and I don’t feel at all that I was deprived of playtime. It was something that I chose to do, and it kept me out of trouble. I was a very mischievous child and reading gave me something constructive to do, and it is something I love to do still. I am working towards a master’s degree in library sciences as a result of that love. No, academics should not be pushed on young children, but “reading” is not the same as “academics.” I have never felt that reading was a purely academic activity. If a child, even a very young one, has the desire to learn, WHY would anyone discourage that?!
You misunderstand, Laura. I actually also learned to read at 3 or so. But teaching yourself to read is very different than being expected or forced to learn to read. There are some kids who read early, but those who read later don’t show any disadvantage and often actually do better, especially if the way kids learned to read early was through “drill-and-kill” techniques. A blog is sort of a shorthand way of exploring a complex issue, but suffice to say I’m not objecting to teaching a child how to read early who wants and is motivated (having been one) but that it should not be institutionalized as an expectationfor all kids and that the acceleration of kindergarten and preschool risks depriving children of true preparation for the task. But yeah, I know there are some educational schools that FORBiD kids to read early. That is not what I’m saying.