1. A two year-old, for instance, can be taught to memorize and parrot just about anything. So let's say there are a number of two year-olds around who can identify numbers or the alphabet, or recite long lists of any other kind. That's fine for them. But I refuse to accept that as any kind of standard, and I encourage all other mothers to ignore it as well. I realize this is purely my opinion, which I can't prove, but I am entirely unconvinced that teaching these kinds of things to very young children provides any kind of advantage whatsoever. I believe that in later years, they'll just be reading at about the same level as children who learn their letters and numbers at their own pace. Now, I can only point to anecdotal evidence here, and I'm admitting that, but until I see evidence of Americans actually getting smarter and more logical, as formal learning reaches back younger and younger, then I will stand my ground on this point. In fact, I think there could actually be harm in drilling formal concepts into young children. Personally, I wonder if this just puts them in a box, in which they do become quite good at spouting things they are taught - and of course it's cute when they're little - but not very good and figuring things out for themselves. And there's this, too:
I can attest to this. I spent a lot of time on certain skills with my oldest when she was in "preschool" and "Kindergarten" that I have little time to do with my youngest...and guess what? It's all working out about the same, just with less stress for me. Far better for Scarlett to want to know her letters, and to ask me to point them out to her, than for me to waste any time insisting that she learn them. I don't care if every other three year-old for miles around can perfectly identify all the letters of the alphabet, I'm not pushing her to do it. She's three. Play is her business, and I think that grow her mind and her love of learning just fine. More than fine, actually.
2. I think sometimes the worry about when children should begin formal learning stems from the fear that there won't be time to teach them everything if they don't start as early as possible. I guess there's some truth to that. It would take a LOT of time to teach someone everything there is to learn, and in fact, no one person, of which a garden-variety parent is the least, can teach any one child everything there is to learn. Darn it, I'm not sure even a collection of teachers in any one given school can teach a child everything there is to learn. Hadn't we better hurry? Thankfully, I don't think it's anyone's job to teach a child everything there is to know, and again, I think trying simply puts children in a box. I tend to think that the best thing to teach a child is how to learn for themselves. Are you reading to them? Are they exploring, experiencing, playing, interacting? Obviously it's useful and necessary to plug in some formal concepts at times and to prompt and nudge now and then. I don't mean that there is never a place for study. But in general, the business of lighting the fire of learning under kids is much, much different than filling the bucket with mere facts. It can feel a little scary at times, when it seems as though other people's preschoolers (or elementary graders...or junior high or high school graders...) know a list of things your child, who is probably running around barefoot outside or making "experiments" in the basement, doesn't know right then. Or maybe they do! It's quite likely that, in reference to the picture above, your child will indicate they know their colors, or will tell you something else out of the blue, and you'll say, "How do you know that?" They just will. And it won't make a bit of difference if they know it at two or if they know it at five.
3. I think everything I've said so far is the truth. I think that kids who learn without fear and without intense prompting and drilling at very young ages will do just as well - or better - than kids who receive all that prompting and drilling. Certainly it's easier for the parents. But let's say that the trend of turning toddlers into "preschoolers" actually produces results. Let's say that it puts them in college by age 12, or that they are brilliant, successful millionaires as adults. I don't care! I think learning is important, and I think there's value in critical thinking skills. I think that if someone wants a career that requires a great deal of education, they will have to look at what colleges want. But I'm not going to live my life or raise my children as slaves of an educational system. I'm not training students who measure up to other students their age. I'm not directing their lives in fear and trepidation of whether or not they'll be accepted by colleges. I'm raising people who will, I hope and pray, serve their Lord and live their lives mindful of eternity. Knowledge is useful in the meantime, but wisdom is far better. Then there's the fact that we live in this world, and act accordingly - I'm not saying college is bad, by any means - but it's a rather fragile world. There's no guarantee that college will be an option by the time our kids get there. There's no guarantee that anything will be the same. So I would rather raise people who can think for themselves and adapt to whatever comes, than just raise kids who will make it to college with the same kind of credentials as everyone else.
And if we think about the uncertainly of life - that society may continue in a predictable fashion for some time, or it is just as likely that everything we rely on may crumble at any time - what would we rather be doing with our children? Would we rather drill the alphabet with those sweet two year-olds, barely more than babies...or would we rather just snuggle and play with them? Would we fret about keeping our 8th graders on track for college....or would we go about the business of training them to be the wise and critically-thinking adults they will be soon enough? And yes, Aimee, if you're reading this...I do still think Algebra still has some value in that purpose. :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment