Toddler literacy? What happened to childhood?
What in heavens name is going on at the pre-school level in England? Why the rush to literacy at the expense of normal development? Why is it now politically correct to take away childhood? What on earth is happening to the Brown led Labour government? Have they lost their sense of purpose and a compass on reality?
What brings up my rhetorical questions is this TimesOnLine piece by Nicola Woolcock about ”authors uniting against toddler literacy“ posted at Jack’s Newswatch today. While you can also follow links from the original article to other sources, here are some of the points being made in the Woolcock column that should cause us all concern:
- Children as young as 4 are expected to write in sentences and use punctuation under the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) framework – widely described as a “toddlers’ curriculum”.
- This sets 69 goals and more than 500 development milestones that children in England should reach by the age of 5.
- They are supposed to use mathematics to solve practical problems, retell stories in the correct sequence, understand right from wrong, read simple sentences on their own, sit quietly, be able to use a computer and understand that other people have different views, cultures and beliefs that need to be respected.
Reality check please! We have spent between fifty and sixty years figuring out the developmental stages of children and adults. Piaget found that children did not start to think abstractly until they were between age 10 and 14, usually around the age of 11. And, when I was in private practice, I did psycho-educational testing. These milestones are totally unrealistic and don’t relate to all the research that has been done.
Dare I also say the expectations border on the fantastic. It’s Alice in Wonderland territory. To expect children under 5 to be able to understand the differences between the various cultures and respect those differences is pie in the sky.
Sure, the younger children can know they have to be nice to other people and polite but that is about it. The why and how are just too abstract at that stage. You know what this is about? This is about making children small adults again. I thought we had gotten rid of that concept after child labour became illegal.
Sure, some kids who are gifted can do it. And, for those you can learn to read and write before school starts, great. But, that doesn’t mean that full literacy should be expected of all children. In the world we live in, there is already a lot of pressure on small children, who need time just to get to know the world around them.
As many of my regular readers know, I used to be a literacy (dyslexia) specialist. In brief, reading involves two or more separate processes (depending on the theorist), the first main phase called reading fluency or decoding — a phase that is usually referred to as the “Learning to Read” stage. Then, there is the comprehension stage which of course overlaps decoding. It is usually referred to as the “Reading to Learn” stage.
The bottom line is a child cannot figure out the main idea in a paragraph or story if they are still learning the letters and combinations of letters and what words actually mean. All that “fluency” must be completely automatic before a child can also draw any conclusions or figure out time lines, etc. And, automaticity does not usually happen until the end of the primary grades in Grade 3 with the start of drawing conclusions and making inferences in Grade 4.
I worked with children who either had learning disabilities or who had simply been rushed into the comprehension phase before they had mastered fluency and, believe me, that can be a disaster for a child and his or her parents.
So, there should be no rush — meaning I too am against this whole notion of any government saying that children should be reading and writing before they even get to regular school. All it will do is create new milestones guaranteeing that the majority of children will “start off” their school lives with the notion that they are losers and failures because they couldn’t measure up to those very unrealistic expectations.
What happened to childhood? What happened to the real stages of development, rather than the rushed?
Let kids be kids.
Jack:
Good column, Sandy and the question “What happened to childhood?” was exactly what I was thinking as I picked up on the story. I’m glad you went after them.
July 24, 2008, 12:55 pmjeff davidson:
i agree with you on this one sandy.
July 24, 2008, 1:12 pmMr. E:
Educators probably know this exercise:
Tell a junior kindergarten student to look at two equal glasses of water in equal sized and shaped containers. Ask the student which one has more or if they are both the same. He will reply the same. Now, take one of those classes and pour the water in a tall slim glass. Ask him if one glass has more than the other or if they are both the same amount of water. He will suggest that the tall slim glass has more water than the shorter wider glass even though they still both hold the same volume of water.
In another exercise, take two equally long pencils and place them parallel on the table with one tip further ahead. Ask a child which one is longer. The pencil with the tip futher ahead will be longer in the child’s eyes.
Here is an example of a Finnish early education program. Sandy, you might have given this link before: http://www.openeducation.net/2008/03/10/several-lessons-to-be-learned-from-the-finnish-school-system/
July 24, 2008, 1:14 pmMr. E:
I should have added that adults can teach certain concepts to really young children such as the volume of water being equally the same in both situations. The children will only grasp the concept when their brains say that they are ready. I could hold multiplication flashcards in front of a kindergarten students. After many attempts, the student might be able to give the correct answers. He or she still won’t be able to understand the concept of multiplication such as using an egg carton to show 2 x 6 = 12.
I will agree that kindergartens and other forms of early child care should be primarily focussed on social development. Reading will come soon enough.
July 24, 2008, 1:28 pmMarc:
I’m not an educator so I may have a more cynical take on this. Seems to me like a compensatory “feel good” plan for parents who publicly deny, but still fell a twinge of guilt, dumping off their kids in the care of strangers every day.
“Little Johnny will not get any parental care, guidance, education or love for half his day but at least he’ll be able to punctuate like nobody’s business by the time he’s 4 years old!”
Gives a semblance of value to what, I think, is the greatest social engineering mistake of our time, daycare. Or at least the idea that it’s as beneficial to a child than starting life off with the constant attention and care of a parent at home. I subcontract my vinyl siding. Not the care of my children.
July 24, 2008, 1:32 pmpotato:
“and understand that other people have different views, cultures and beliefs that need to be respected.”
Maybe it’s just an excuse for politically correct indoctrination. I hear North Korea begins their indoctrination at two and a half.
July 24, 2008, 1:40 pmAnn:
Having seen my kids through the public system over the past 16 years I can say that there are those parents who’ll week out the hype and pressure in suggestions of this nature, and those who’ll panic and turn to the state for what they can get to give their kids an edge.
By the time my second started school it was easy to ignore what “experts” said children should and shouldn’t do. Reminds me how when you’re about to have your first child you read and collect as much info. as you can. By the second and third, the books never come down off the shelf because either something new came along or you found a better way to do things on your own.
Mr. E makes valid points about how learning by doing can teach children plenty.
July 24, 2008, 2:50 pmsor:
Greetings. I’m with Marc on this one. I was a stay at home mom when my kids were little and always had friends and aquaintances wanting me to do childcare for them. They never understood my disinclination. To them I was at home anyway and was providing an optimal environment, or at least an environment that they wanted for there children, so why would i not want to have more kids to look after.
By taking in other children it would have tied me down and prevented me from enriching my children’s life. It was something they could never understand but one I never regret. Cheers.
July 24, 2008, 3:36 pmrabbit:
Before children enter primary school, they should be able to read, write, and converse in three languages, competently play both a stringed and wind instrument, have at least a rudimentary understanding of the fundamentals of vector calculus, and be able to debate the merits of competing philosophical systems.
Anything else is child abuse.
Course at the age I was still wetting the bed and sucking my thumb, but then do we want children to turn out like I did? Didn’t think so.
July 24, 2008, 3:44 pmAnn:
ooops……my brain moving faster than fingers. Earlier post that should have read “weed out” not “week out”.
what happened to the ideal that the purpose of education was to impart knowledge and bring all learning types to one common place-whatever that was? Seems to me that more and more is being expected of parents because the goal now(and we’ve seen it written here) is to “facilitate” children’s education rather than to “teach” it?
I can relate to sor, but you know what? Parents can be a huge source of pressure to other parents and to the system also. I wish the system had the balls to stand up to parents who want babysitting to fight back for their profession of just teaching for the purpose of imparting knowledge, without the bells and whistles.
July 24, 2008, 5:07 pmErica:
“I subcontract my vinyl siding. Not the care of my children.”
What a bold and dare I say ignorant statement to make. Children need love and attention. They don’t need that love and attention to come 100% from their parents exclusively, though. Daycare does not equal substandard care.
Also, god forbid both parents work. God forbid a woman sees her place outside the home as well. Should she not have children if she isn’t willing to give it all up and be a stay-at-home mom?
July 24, 2008, 5:10 pmErica:
Oh, and on the subject of the article, I agree. We should embrace learning, but we should not pressure our children to master these skills at such an early age.
July 24, 2008, 5:11 pmMarc:
“What a bold and dare I say ignorant statement to make.”
What a bold and judgmental statement to make. I expressed an opinion on a child care option and you make a nasty and demeaning comment on my intelligence. Classy.
“Children need love and attention.” I agree. And you seriously believe day care workers can provide the same quantity and quality of love and attention a parent can?
“Also, god forbid both parents work. God forbid a woman sees her place outside the home as well. Should she not have children if she isn’t willing to give it all up and be a stay-at-home mom?”
Your assumption I meant the Mom would stay at home is the most sexist comment I have read in a long while. Where in my post do I actually write the “Mom”? Nowhere. I wrote “a parent”. Pretty big feminist / victim chip on your shoulder there . . .
July 24, 2008, 5:54 pmsor:
Again I’m with Marc. People make choices. Mine was to stay home with my children and give up a lucrative professional job. Other’s chose the work/daycare route. By giving up a second salary our family gave up all of the extras such as winter holiday’s,etc…
My comment earlier was about those friends who wanted both. They wanted the career and they wanted me to provide the loving home for their children.
I agree that parents can be a good part of the problem when it comes to unrealistic expectations. In my observations, though, it appears that parents who are also the primary caregivers have the most realistic expectations of their children. The more removed the parent is from the day to day care the less they know their kids.
Again just my observations. Cheers.
July 24, 2008, 6:12 pmMarc:
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head Sor. It is a choice. I chose to spend the first few years at home with my child because I deeply believe nobody could have cared for him as well as my partner and I did and it was the most enjoyable time of my life. It meant some sacrifices, yes. We lived in a one bedroom apartment, didn’t have cable tv, drove a 12 year old car but I wouldn’t trade these first few years with my little guy for the world.
July 24, 2008, 6:48 pmSandy:
Ann, to my knowledge I have never said “to teach” is the same as “to facilitate.”
Facilitate means to set up the conditions for learning but teaching is about imparting specific skills or knowledge to someone else. You need both — it is a “two-way” relationship of communication.
For example, what if a child were to take music lessons but does not do well because: (1) they do not have a piano at home and (2) they do not practice between lessons? The piano teacher is both teaching and trying to facilitate learning but the student is not buying into the process for reasons unrelated to the lessons — and doesn’t succeed.
In other words, teaching AND learning are both required for positive outcomes — assuming the children are being taught what they are developmentally ready to learn.
Which brings us to this post — because most of these pre-school children are being taught concepts they are developmentally not yet able to learn. Therefore, if they fail, in this case, it “would” be the teacher’s fault, not their own, because they were being taught knowledge and skills far beyond their ability to learn.
Yet, my guess, is these very young children will internalize both the failure and the blame.
July 24, 2008, 7:08 pmSandy:
And, in Erica’s defense, I can understand what she is saying. I stayed at home with my kids for a few years until I unexpectedly became a single parent and had to work to pay the rent.
Later, after I remarried, I went back to school and became a teacher. And, yes, my kids did spend time in a day care. But, my daughter did the reverse and stayed home with her kids. Yet, she and I have talked about it and she says she had a good time and never regretted being at day care.
So, let’s get rid of the guilt. I don’t think Erica is a feminist with a chip on her shoulder. She has just heard it all before as have I. I was a career woman and I have no regrets.
I am glad that SOR enjoyed her time at home. It just wasn’t for me. I am an achiever or I wouldn’t be writing on this blog day after day in my sixties. Just the way I am.
So, let’s allow people to be all they can be and if it involves some day care, the children will do just fine. But, thank heavens, not the kind of day care in this article.
July 24, 2008, 7:11 pmsor:
I agree Sandy. As long as each person makes his/her own decisions then they are the best ones for them. It would be a dull world if we all followed the same path.
The only problem I ever had was someone (usually female) deriding me for not setting a good example for my daughters. I tried to impart (by example) that they had to follow their own pathway and be comfortable with their own decisions.
I have one daughter that is fairly traditional and one that is a mining engineer so something must have rubbed off. I can say also that they are happy well round young women. I don’t know if that is in spite of me or because of me. Cheers.
July 24, 2008, 8:36 pmJohn:
The English are, as always, ambitious.Their goal with the Kindergarden cirriculum is to be the first to experience “pre-school dropouts” Then the socialist government can send in its spare ” Nannies” to fix the problem.
July 24, 2008, 8:39 pmSandy:
SOR — As you know, I came of age in the late 1950’s. It was a different world where gender roles and identities were clearly defined. Needless to say, I never felt comfortable with them. Thankfully, by 1970 when I went back to school, the rules were changing.
As you say, its about choice. And, we have to respect women or men’s choice to stay home. Let’s not make the mistake of going from one extreme to another. To each his or her own.
So Marc is right as well. Men’s roles used to be clearly defined and very limiting. Now, they too can decide to take time off work to be with their kids. That choice was a long time coming though.
My youngest, my son, had autism and it was extremely difficult. I don’t think I could have survived on my own dealing with the situation. By having a regional daycare placement, where the childcare workers were able to work with him, I feel I was actually a better parent. Also, thankfully, my second husband and I “shared” child care duties.
The problem in this English pre-school situation is the potential long-term repercussions that the minister responsible doesn’t seem willing to look at — due to ideology and political correctness.
But, guaranteed, this house of cards is going to come tumbling down and it will be the kids who are hurt, not the politicians. Can you just imagine how this “requirement” is going to affect children with any kind of learning or developmental disability?
July 24, 2008, 9:06 pmAnn:
This is what happens when we let politicians be bought by the monopoly. All of a sudden politicians are experts on child-rearing and education.
I’ve always believed that parents and individual classroom teachers need the most attention in the delivery of education. Politics and bureaucracy should be shown the door.
One more thing before I leave for 3 weeks. I really, REALLY hate it when politicians use schools and classrooms for their photo-ops….especially when the kids are too young to know what’s going on. Anyone else?
Quite by accident I find it amazing that in the current Ontario government the former school board people and former educators almost out number the lawyers. I don’t know what that means but if the gov’t is being run like a school board…man, are we in for a ride!
July 25, 2008, 9:13 ameduc8m:
I thought Sandy’s comment about Piaget’s obervation that deductive reasoning develops around age 12 in kids to be the most telling.
Too much of our North American curricula pivots around developing “problem solving skills” in early primary grades when children that are just not ready. We spend too much time at too early an age on the problem solving before we have inculcated basic skills. The result is that neither basic literacy nor numeracy are well entrenched and the problem solving gets bogged down by the lack of the former.
Bang on Sandy.
July 25, 2008, 10:04 amSandy:
Educ8m — That has been a bone of contention with me for years. We have known for decades that abstract reasoning does not start until around age 12 — give or take a couple of years depending on the child — yet primary and junior curricula has had all this “thinking skills” and “problem solving” content for years.
It is as though curriculum design and development teams(which are usually a committee of practicing educators) forgot all about the role of cognitive development.
For the life of me I don’t understand it. I used to teach this stuff at the undergraduate level to students who were taking an education elective or were in the four year concurrent B.A./B.Ed program. And, the students recognized, from their own educational experiences, what I was talking about.
Where it did make sense was a document called “discovery learning” at the primary level. It was basically an introduction to inductive reasoning. Because the approach is experiential the children learn a great deal but they would never be able to explain what they had learned or why they had learned. But, it is a where they are at developmentally — curious and inquisitive. They are not yet ready to draw conclusions and make recommendations.
So, this English government expectation that pre-school children not only know the various cultures, but what each represents and how to respect them, I am speechless — although not quite. LOL
It is one thing to teach a child that people are different and we should be polite and not stare. But, quite another to get into the abstract discussions on the differences, what each group believes, etc. Mind boggling to say the least.
July 25, 2008, 10:42 amMaryT:
This is for April in above post. Comments appear turned off there.
July 26, 2008, 11:17 amApril, Sandy is 100% right in her response. I would just add, if at first you don’t succeed, try and try again. Never give up, never take NO for an answer. We have been the the School of the Deaf in Winnipeg on several occassions, taking advantage of their immersion program.
Help is out there.
Re labelling. One problem that many parents have is the teachers expectations of students coming from the same family. If the oldest was slow, or average, the next one gets treated the same, and if the first one is an above average student, teacher expects the sibling to be the same. This also goes for problem students, disruptive students or whatever. And it is especially true when a teacher has been around for a long time, and taught one or both parents, as was common in rural schools. I am glad to see that parents are coming out with the problems they face/faced with their special needs child. You are not alone, but until you bring your problem out, no one knows. Help is out there and somebody here will help you find it.
Sandy:
Mary T — Could you do me a favour and repost what you just left here on the “labelling” post for April? That post is a re-publish so April will need to receive your most recent comment. Unfortunately the comments got turned off somehow. Anyway, I turned them back on.
July 26, 2008, 3:26 pm