I couldn't resist this topic, even though it means delaying my Attachment Parenting series a bit. Sariah turns 3 in a couple of months, and this fact has turned my attention once again to early childhood learning. I've been reading and pondering and debating like crazy!
Let me begin with some background: early in my years at BYU, I did a stint in the Early Childhood Education program. It wasn't exactly a short stint--I was three years' into the major and only two classes away from student teaching when I switched to music. The beginnings of my opinions on this subject were formed during the years I was in that program. We studied extensively the developmental theories of Jean Piaget. Piaget observed that as children grow and mature, their cognitive capacities change. Children develop in stages. Children under 2 think and process very differently than children ages 3-7, and preschoolers learn much differently than children over 7. Another shift occurs around the age of 11, as children become more capable of abstract thinking. If you are interested in more detail about these stages, just good "Piaget developmental stages", and you will get pages and pages of information.
Of course, Piaget isn't the only theorist ever to study learning. And of course, Piaget isn't God--he doesn't have the corner on all truth about how children learn. But he has been a extremely influential force in understanding young children. The program I was in at BYU was heavily based on Piaget's work. The university preschool, where I worked for a semester, was designed to honor the developmental stages of the children who attended. One important feature was that no academics whatsoever were taught in this preschool, even to the four-year-olds. Children did not learn the alphabet or their numbers. They played! They listened to stories and did fingerplays and sang songs. The focus was on hands-on learning. When we had a theme for the day, we planned ways to teach that theme so that the children could interact and gain their own understanding of it rather than being lectured by the teacher or doing a "worksheet" about it. I can't remember any specific themes we had in the preschool, but I do remember the day, in one of our teaching classes, that the professor brought in a whole, fresh pineapple. We spent the hour observing and examining the pineapple, then dissecting it and, finally, eating it. She allowed us to explore it for ourselves and asked questions to facilitate our learning. This was the way the children's classes were handled as well. The tables might be full of toys, specially chosen for the day, but one or two tables would always included a physical object related to the theme, there for the children to explore in a hands-on way. We had it drilled into our heads that formal academics were not appropriate for children at this age. They NEEDED hands-on learning and plenty of play in order to develop properly.
There has been a trend in American education to introduce academics at younger and younger ages. This started, in part, in the 1960's with the Headstart program. Headstart originally began as a way to give children from impoverished environments extra enrichment so that they could go on to be academically successful when they went to school. Somehow, what was initially a specific solution for a specific need has become a nation-wide obsession to make children smarter by teaching academic concepts earlier. Whereas the alphabet used to be taught in kindergarten, and reading not generally introduced until first grade, many parents and teachers now expect 3-year-olds to know their letters and 4-year-olds to start reading. There are even programs out there designed to teach infants and toddlers to read. (And I am currently having the challenging task of explaining to my 6-year-old, after he saw such an advertisement on TV, why we will NOT be teaching Sariah to read right now.)
The thing is, these trends don't reflect the truth that many young children are not cognitively ready for this kind of learning. And even if they are, the time and energy spent on learning letters and numbers takes away from time and energy that would better be spent on providing the kinds of learning opportunities that they do need--hands-on exploration and lots and lots of play and movement, as well as plenty of informal music and art experiences. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that learning to read at 4 will set up a child for greater academic success in life than a child who learns to read at 6 or 7. Children who learn to read a bit later (barring true learning disabilites) will quickly catch up to those who were reading as preschoolers. By the second or third grade, there is little difference between those who read early and those who didn't. In fact, in some European countries, children are not taught to read until age 7, and those countries have higher adult literacy rates than the United States. (France is the specific country that comes to mind. For more information on this, read the enlightening book Miseducation: Preschoolers at Risk by David Elkind, a champion of letting children be children and not rushing the process.)
Over the years, I've actually softened my stance on this a bit. Before I had a preschooler, I was adamant that any exposure to academics was potentially harmful to a child under the age of 4 or 5. Now that I've had a child of my own, I do believe that children can develop at different rates and that some children may be ready for academics earlier on. Researchers after Piaget have shown that there may be more variability in his cognitive stages than was earlier thought. However, I do still think that those stages are generally accurate. While I believe that some children may be ready to read or learn letters earlier--and that certainly no parent should hold back a child who is ready, I still think that the general trend to push academics on young children is inappropriate. It saddens me not that some children can and do learn these things at young ages, but that this standard has become the norm for all children when, in my opinion, it should be the exception.
Obviously it's a concern when a child who is not ready for these things is measured against children who are ready. It's a concern when a parent is worried that their 3-year-old cannot seem to grasp the alphabet. It's a concern when time and effort are spent trying to get a young child to learn something that she is simply not ready to learn. It's a concern when preschool programs spend the bulk of their time focusing on academic preparedness instead of the myriad of other things that young children need more. A good friend of mine was appalled when she put her young daughter in preschool and found that they spent most of their time doing worksheets, not engaged in art, music, and outdoor play as she had presumed. She pulled her daughter out after just a few weeks. When I went looking for preschools for Dallin, I was hard-pressed to find one that was not focused almost exclusively on getting the children ready for kindergarten. These preschool programs are almost nothing like the one I worked in during my days at BYU.
When Dallin was about 3.5, I gave into the societal pressure I felt and decided to very casually teach him his letters. After a few weeks, it was plainly obvious that he was not ready. If a child is ready to learn something, it should not be HARD. There should not be much effort involved in helping them master the concept. This was not the case for Dallin. He went to preschool at age 4, and the program he was in did teach letters and numbers, though it was not the only focus. Throughout the year, he learned many of them, but did not retain them especially well. When he was assessed for kindergarten at age 5, he could identify about 2/3 of the letters and less than half of their sounds. But you know what, he did just fine in kindergarten! By the end of kindergarten, he could read the 25 sightwords they'd been required to learn, and he was starting to read very simple C-V-C books, but it was pretty laborious. There definitely wasn't any fluency to his reading. I was fine with this. Other mothers in his class were frustrated with the teacher because they felt their children hadn't "learned anything". I'd actually been relieved to get a teacher who would not freak out, label him as "behind", or push him beyond what he was ready to do. He went on to first grade, and he's had a very successful year! He is now reading quite fluently and is moving quickly from level to level. It's been amazing to watch the difference between the relative slowness of his progression in kindergarten, and how he's flown in first grade. My explanation for this is that in first grade he was ready. I don't think it would have made much difference if he'd waited until kindergarten to have his first exposure to the alphabet. He was not slow in any way... he was absolutely, totally normal in his development. Yet as a parent, when he was younger, I sometimes felt guilty and questioned whether I should have pushed him to learn these things earlier. Now I feel totally vindicated! Now I can look back and know that I did the right thing!
Now things will be different with Sariah. I imagine that she too will challenge me to change and grow in my thinking. She is almost 3, and I can already tell that she will do these academic things much earlier than Dallin did. I can just tell. Yet I still want to be sure to maintain balance in her life. A few months ago I was thinking that I would get her an alphabet book for her birthday, and now as I study it out, I think I will wait. If she makes it clear that she is dying to learn letters, I won't hold her back, but I still think she needs to hang on to young childhood awhile longer. A holistic preschool experience is very important to me! While I don't think that learning numbers or letters at age 3 is vital to her healthy development, I do think that being immersed in art, music, movement, and nature IS vital to that development. There is plenty of time for academics, but only a short window of time for her to use the skills and abilities that are inherent to young children to explore her world in a way that can only be done in early childhood. I watch her very sensory approach to the world, how everything is about her body, and know that this stage ends. I want to make sure that the things of this stage are not crowded out by things firmly rooted in the next stage. After all, these early years cannot be recaptured.
So for our fall experience, I've chosen a Waldorf-inspired home preschool curriculum called Oak Meadow. ( http://www.oakmeadow.com/ ) I still intend to write a post about Waldorf education and what I like--and don't like--about it. Waldorf is definitely not without its flaws, as you will see if you begin researching it! But it has many of the elements that I think are important in an early childhood experience. The child's need for movement and free development of physical skills is honored and nourished. Imaginative play is held as central in importance. There is a focus on creating a warm and enriching environment for the child as a backdrop to his or her explorations of the world. Arts and crafts are seen as integral parts of living and being, and these things permeate the school experience not just in preschool, but throughout the child's entire journey. Nature and the seasons also have a huge focus in a Waldorf program, and I think early childhood is a wonderful time to fill a child with reverence for the beautiful world Heavenly Father has created. Rather than drill letters and numbers, Waldorf preschool teachers focus on story-telling, fingerplays, and the like. Another Waldorf-influenced preschool program that can be used at home can be found at http://www.littleacornlearning.com/. If you download and print the sample weekly lesson plan, you will get a feel for how all the elements I've mentioned above interact to make a rich preschool experience for the young child. Another non-academic program I like that is not Waldorf-based (but is created by LDS parenting experts) is the Joy School program developed by Richard and Linda Eyre, found at http://www.valuesparenting.com/joyschool/ .
I want to end by acknowledging that American parents who plan to send their children to public school are in a bit of a hard spot. I had a friend once lament to me, "I don't want to pressure my young child into learning her alphabet either, but when she gets to kindergarten, I don't want her to be behind. I don't want her to ever feel ashamed or be seen as slow." There are no easy answers to this. Part of me wants to balk against the system and refuse to kow-tow to ideals that I don't agree with (and to an extent, I did). Part of me wants to just homeschool and do it my own way. Part of me was also concerned about my own son and what his kindergarten experience would be, and yes, I did try to make sure that he would be somewhat prepared. I was lucky that he ended up in a classroom that was relatively low-pressure by society's standards. From talking to friends, I know that other kindergarten classes in other schools are expected to be much further "ahead" of where Dallin's class was.
Now that I have a child firmly in elementary school, I also see how fast those early carefree years are gone. He's in school all day long now. Art is non-existent (coloring and cutting and pasting pre-printed drawings is NOT art!). So is music. (Formal music lessons are not exactly "carefree".) Recess and free play are being cut in favor of more reading, more math, and more testing. (Luckily, he is in a school where the children still get recess.) He has a great teacher! I've been in her classroom, and she does try to make things fun and provide enriching experiences. But it's very, very different from early childhood. I want to protect my children from having early childhood be more and more like middle and later childhood!
So there you have it, and I step down from my soapbox. (At least for a day or two.)
Disclaimer: This is all my opinion. I don't claim to have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing-but-the-truth. This is just the way I see things. Also, it's been a while since I read much of this research, if I mix up some numbers or stats, forgive me. Remember, I'm not presenting this for my dissertation or anything!
Let me begin with some background: early in my years at BYU, I did a stint in the Early Childhood Education program. It wasn't exactly a short stint--I was three years' into the major and only two classes away from student teaching when I switched to music. The beginnings of my opinions on this subject were formed during the years I was in that program. We studied extensively the developmental theories of Jean Piaget. Piaget observed that as children grow and mature, their cognitive capacities change. Children develop in stages. Children under 2 think and process very differently than children ages 3-7, and preschoolers learn much differently than children over 7. Another shift occurs around the age of 11, as children become more capable of abstract thinking. If you are interested in more detail about these stages, just good "Piaget developmental stages", and you will get pages and pages of information.
Of course, Piaget isn't the only theorist ever to study learning. And of course, Piaget isn't God--he doesn't have the corner on all truth about how children learn. But he has been a extremely influential force in understanding young children. The program I was in at BYU was heavily based on Piaget's work. The university preschool, where I worked for a semester, was designed to honor the developmental stages of the children who attended. One important feature was that no academics whatsoever were taught in this preschool, even to the four-year-olds. Children did not learn the alphabet or their numbers. They played! They listened to stories and did fingerplays and sang songs. The focus was on hands-on learning. When we had a theme for the day, we planned ways to teach that theme so that the children could interact and gain their own understanding of it rather than being lectured by the teacher or doing a "worksheet" about it. I can't remember any specific themes we had in the preschool, but I do remember the day, in one of our teaching classes, that the professor brought in a whole, fresh pineapple. We spent the hour observing and examining the pineapple, then dissecting it and, finally, eating it. She allowed us to explore it for ourselves and asked questions to facilitate our learning. This was the way the children's classes were handled as well. The tables might be full of toys, specially chosen for the day, but one or two tables would always included a physical object related to the theme, there for the children to explore in a hands-on way. We had it drilled into our heads that formal academics were not appropriate for children at this age. They NEEDED hands-on learning and plenty of play in order to develop properly.
There has been a trend in American education to introduce academics at younger and younger ages. This started, in part, in the 1960's with the Headstart program. Headstart originally began as a way to give children from impoverished environments extra enrichment so that they could go on to be academically successful when they went to school. Somehow, what was initially a specific solution for a specific need has become a nation-wide obsession to make children smarter by teaching academic concepts earlier. Whereas the alphabet used to be taught in kindergarten, and reading not generally introduced until first grade, many parents and teachers now expect 3-year-olds to know their letters and 4-year-olds to start reading. There are even programs out there designed to teach infants and toddlers to read. (And I am currently having the challenging task of explaining to my 6-year-old, after he saw such an advertisement on TV, why we will NOT be teaching Sariah to read right now.)
The thing is, these trends don't reflect the truth that many young children are not cognitively ready for this kind of learning. And even if they are, the time and energy spent on learning letters and numbers takes away from time and energy that would better be spent on providing the kinds of learning opportunities that they do need--hands-on exploration and lots and lots of play and movement, as well as plenty of informal music and art experiences. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that learning to read at 4 will set up a child for greater academic success in life than a child who learns to read at 6 or 7. Children who learn to read a bit later (barring true learning disabilites) will quickly catch up to those who were reading as preschoolers. By the second or third grade, there is little difference between those who read early and those who didn't. In fact, in some European countries, children are not taught to read until age 7, and those countries have higher adult literacy rates than the United States. (France is the specific country that comes to mind. For more information on this, read the enlightening book Miseducation: Preschoolers at Risk by David Elkind, a champion of letting children be children and not rushing the process.)
Over the years, I've actually softened my stance on this a bit. Before I had a preschooler, I was adamant that any exposure to academics was potentially harmful to a child under the age of 4 or 5. Now that I've had a child of my own, I do believe that children can develop at different rates and that some children may be ready for academics earlier on. Researchers after Piaget have shown that there may be more variability in his cognitive stages than was earlier thought. However, I do still think that those stages are generally accurate. While I believe that some children may be ready to read or learn letters earlier--and that certainly no parent should hold back a child who is ready, I still think that the general trend to push academics on young children is inappropriate. It saddens me not that some children can and do learn these things at young ages, but that this standard has become the norm for all children when, in my opinion, it should be the exception.
Obviously it's a concern when a child who is not ready for these things is measured against children who are ready. It's a concern when a parent is worried that their 3-year-old cannot seem to grasp the alphabet. It's a concern when time and effort are spent trying to get a young child to learn something that she is simply not ready to learn. It's a concern when preschool programs spend the bulk of their time focusing on academic preparedness instead of the myriad of other things that young children need more. A good friend of mine was appalled when she put her young daughter in preschool and found that they spent most of their time doing worksheets, not engaged in art, music, and outdoor play as she had presumed. She pulled her daughter out after just a few weeks. When I went looking for preschools for Dallin, I was hard-pressed to find one that was not focused almost exclusively on getting the children ready for kindergarten. These preschool programs are almost nothing like the one I worked in during my days at BYU.
When Dallin was about 3.5, I gave into the societal pressure I felt and decided to very casually teach him his letters. After a few weeks, it was plainly obvious that he was not ready. If a child is ready to learn something, it should not be HARD. There should not be much effort involved in helping them master the concept. This was not the case for Dallin. He went to preschool at age 4, and the program he was in did teach letters and numbers, though it was not the only focus. Throughout the year, he learned many of them, but did not retain them especially well. When he was assessed for kindergarten at age 5, he could identify about 2/3 of the letters and less than half of their sounds. But you know what, he did just fine in kindergarten! By the end of kindergarten, he could read the 25 sightwords they'd been required to learn, and he was starting to read very simple C-V-C books, but it was pretty laborious. There definitely wasn't any fluency to his reading. I was fine with this. Other mothers in his class were frustrated with the teacher because they felt their children hadn't "learned anything". I'd actually been relieved to get a teacher who would not freak out, label him as "behind", or push him beyond what he was ready to do. He went on to first grade, and he's had a very successful year! He is now reading quite fluently and is moving quickly from level to level. It's been amazing to watch the difference between the relative slowness of his progression in kindergarten, and how he's flown in first grade. My explanation for this is that in first grade he was ready. I don't think it would have made much difference if he'd waited until kindergarten to have his first exposure to the alphabet. He was not slow in any way... he was absolutely, totally normal in his development. Yet as a parent, when he was younger, I sometimes felt guilty and questioned whether I should have pushed him to learn these things earlier. Now I feel totally vindicated! Now I can look back and know that I did the right thing!
Now things will be different with Sariah. I imagine that she too will challenge me to change and grow in my thinking. She is almost 3, and I can already tell that she will do these academic things much earlier than Dallin did. I can just tell. Yet I still want to be sure to maintain balance in her life. A few months ago I was thinking that I would get her an alphabet book for her birthday, and now as I study it out, I think I will wait. If she makes it clear that she is dying to learn letters, I won't hold her back, but I still think she needs to hang on to young childhood awhile longer. A holistic preschool experience is very important to me! While I don't think that learning numbers or letters at age 3 is vital to her healthy development, I do think that being immersed in art, music, movement, and nature IS vital to that development. There is plenty of time for academics, but only a short window of time for her to use the skills and abilities that are inherent to young children to explore her world in a way that can only be done in early childhood. I watch her very sensory approach to the world, how everything is about her body, and know that this stage ends. I want to make sure that the things of this stage are not crowded out by things firmly rooted in the next stage. After all, these early years cannot be recaptured.
So for our fall experience, I've chosen a Waldorf-inspired home preschool curriculum called Oak Meadow. ( http://www.oakmeadow.com/ ) I still intend to write a post about Waldorf education and what I like--and don't like--about it. Waldorf is definitely not without its flaws, as you will see if you begin researching it! But it has many of the elements that I think are important in an early childhood experience. The child's need for movement and free development of physical skills is honored and nourished. Imaginative play is held as central in importance. There is a focus on creating a warm and enriching environment for the child as a backdrop to his or her explorations of the world. Arts and crafts are seen as integral parts of living and being, and these things permeate the school experience not just in preschool, but throughout the child's entire journey. Nature and the seasons also have a huge focus in a Waldorf program, and I think early childhood is a wonderful time to fill a child with reverence for the beautiful world Heavenly Father has created. Rather than drill letters and numbers, Waldorf preschool teachers focus on story-telling, fingerplays, and the like. Another Waldorf-influenced preschool program that can be used at home can be found at http://www.littleacornlearning.com/. If you download and print the sample weekly lesson plan, you will get a feel for how all the elements I've mentioned above interact to make a rich preschool experience for the young child. Another non-academic program I like that is not Waldorf-based (but is created by LDS parenting experts) is the Joy School program developed by Richard and Linda Eyre, found at http://www.valuesparenting.com/joyschool/ .
I want to end by acknowledging that American parents who plan to send their children to public school are in a bit of a hard spot. I had a friend once lament to me, "I don't want to pressure my young child into learning her alphabet either, but when she gets to kindergarten, I don't want her to be behind. I don't want her to ever feel ashamed or be seen as slow." There are no easy answers to this. Part of me wants to balk against the system and refuse to kow-tow to ideals that I don't agree with (and to an extent, I did). Part of me wants to just homeschool and do it my own way. Part of me was also concerned about my own son and what his kindergarten experience would be, and yes, I did try to make sure that he would be somewhat prepared. I was lucky that he ended up in a classroom that was relatively low-pressure by society's standards. From talking to friends, I know that other kindergarten classes in other schools are expected to be much further "ahead" of where Dallin's class was.
Now that I have a child firmly in elementary school, I also see how fast those early carefree years are gone. He's in school all day long now. Art is non-existent (coloring and cutting and pasting pre-printed drawings is NOT art!). So is music. (Formal music lessons are not exactly "carefree".) Recess and free play are being cut in favor of more reading, more math, and more testing. (Luckily, he is in a school where the children still get recess.) He has a great teacher! I've been in her classroom, and she does try to make things fun and provide enriching experiences. But it's very, very different from early childhood. I want to protect my children from having early childhood be more and more like middle and later childhood!
So there you have it, and I step down from my soapbox. (At least for a day or two.)
Disclaimer: This is all my opinion. I don't claim to have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing-but-the-truth. This is just the way I see things. Also, it's been a while since I read much of this research, if I mix up some numbers or stats, forgive me. Remember, I'm not presenting this for my dissertation or anything!
Comments
One reason I love preschool is because there is no testing. I do want my preschoolers to feel prepared for K...which means I will present more opprotunities to recognize sonds, letters, etc....but only in hands-on ways. No pressure. Now...getting parents to understand this is another story like you said.
I think it wouldn't hurt to get Sariah an alphabet book. It doesn't mean you are trying to get her to learn her alphabet too soon. They are fun and colorful and have great pictures. When Sophia went into the 2nd grade the teacher choices weren't that great either....but it turned out wonderful. I didn't like everything the teacher did but Sophia excelled without struggling so I check it off as a good experience! Are you planning to homeschool eventually? If you stay in the public school system you are almost guaranteed a couple of years with some wacky teachers!!!
Ok...I will get off my soapbox too:) I get a little defensive when I hear parents say "my child isn't learning anything in preschool" because if they only knew WHAT their child was soaking up!!! *sigh*
Great post! Makes me want to get my masters!
I too studied early childhood at BYU, but then switched to elementary ed and graduated in that, teaching for a few years in the public schools afterward. The biggest difference between children was not those who went to preschool, but those who had come from loving homes with parents who focused on the family and creating a good home environment. And I believe that parents play such a huge role in a child's education, and that is often overlooked.
Hope you don't mind me lurking around here. I was impressed with what you've said (I found this blog through Stacy Smith's blog and the title of the piece piqued my interest). Hope you don't mind.