Yeah, I know, reading "The Importance of Being Little" by Erika Christakis (2016) is a few years too early for me because Val and my firstborn has not yet arrived. But after reading Bringing Up Bébé, I got intrigued about how to raise a child in the toddler stage.
The bleakness of the U.S. pre-school situation that the author presents to the reader to the point that makes homeschool education a viable option (for households with one parent who can afford to stay home and teach). My impression is that pre-school teachers are painted as inadequately trained in child psychology and are not equipped to create learning scaffolds (like personalised follow up questions) that stretch a toddler's capacity to think. Government policies, on the other hand, seemingly over-concentrate in making unrealistic but quantifiable learning milestones, breaking behaviour down into problems that need to be solved, and reducing play and arts. If parents decide to go the homeschooling route, they also fall into this rabbit hole of key performance indicators that eliminate a child's capacity for hands-on learning and to make mental connections... no different from the pre-school teachers who struggle to actually apply what they've been trained to do (I don't believe that teachers are inadequately trained; the structure of the pre-school system has prevented them from exploring outside the box).
For example, the alphabet and numbers are presented by teachers (probably based on government standards) in a way that encourages memorisation of symbols rather than encourage kids to learn how to enjoy reading (e.g., recognising the letters rather than seeing the whole word) or to understand the meaning of numbers (e.g., kids recognise that the "4" symbol means four rather than the four-ness of four). But kids can learn the basics of algebra and economics through play; I remember participating in grade school mini-fairs where students (including kindergarteners) buy food using play money, to learn addition and subtraction (algebra), from stores managed by grade-school students who learn to manage raw materials to maximise profit (economics). Kids can also learn how to read via trips to grocery stores (by reading the brand names of items displayed along the aisles, for example) or gaining an appreciation of the natural world by being outdoors (e.g., exploring wildlife, even in urban landscapes, is beneficial to kids; going to summer camp). Moreover, children learn through unstructured play. This reminds me of times when my parents just allowed us kids to play for hours with our neighbours in the sugarcane field right in front of our house. Each dad had his own whistle tone so each kid knew if they were being beckoned back home.
Halfway through the book, I still haven't found the importance of being little. Instead, I've realised that childhood is under threat from adults who impose adult standards on children barely out of their diapers. The author started talking about how important increasing pre-school teachers' salaries is towards improving the quality of the pre-school experience. She also tried to differentiate child care from pre-school; which, according to her, are merged in practice.
Throughout all this, the parents are largely absent from the process; as if preschool child development responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the teachers. However, as I was approaching the end of the book, the author started going back to how parents contribute to how their children develop into members of society (if I'm allowed to refer to Jean-Jacques Rousseau here). Speaking of Rousseau, the book actually mentioned the École Maternelle en France which aims to train pre-schoolers to become French (the first time I read this was in Bringing Up Bébé).
As I approached the end of the book, I finally realise what I think the author wants to say, the elevator pitch, if you will: as adults, we need to allow children to be children and to provide the environment that allows them to act as such.
The bleakness of the U.S. pre-school situation that the author presents to the reader to the point that makes homeschool education a viable option (for households with one parent who can afford to stay home and teach). My impression is that pre-school teachers are painted as inadequately trained in child psychology and are not equipped to create learning scaffolds (like personalised follow up questions) that stretch a toddler's capacity to think. Government policies, on the other hand, seemingly over-concentrate in making unrealistic but quantifiable learning milestones, breaking behaviour down into problems that need to be solved, and reducing play and arts. If parents decide to go the homeschooling route, they also fall into this rabbit hole of key performance indicators that eliminate a child's capacity for hands-on learning and to make mental connections... no different from the pre-school teachers who struggle to actually apply what they've been trained to do (I don't believe that teachers are inadequately trained; the structure of the pre-school system has prevented them from exploring outside the box).
For example, the alphabet and numbers are presented by teachers (probably based on government standards) in a way that encourages memorisation of symbols rather than encourage kids to learn how to enjoy reading (e.g., recognising the letters rather than seeing the whole word) or to understand the meaning of numbers (e.g., kids recognise that the "4" symbol means four rather than the four-ness of four). But kids can learn the basics of algebra and economics through play; I remember participating in grade school mini-fairs where students (including kindergarteners) buy food using play money, to learn addition and subtraction (algebra), from stores managed by grade-school students who learn to manage raw materials to maximise profit (economics). Kids can also learn how to read via trips to grocery stores (by reading the brand names of items displayed along the aisles, for example) or gaining an appreciation of the natural world by being outdoors (e.g., exploring wildlife, even in urban landscapes, is beneficial to kids; going to summer camp). Moreover, children learn through unstructured play. This reminds me of times when my parents just allowed us kids to play for hours with our neighbours in the sugarcane field right in front of our house. Each dad had his own whistle tone so each kid knew if they were being beckoned back home.
Halfway through the book, I still haven't found the importance of being little. Instead, I've realised that childhood is under threat from adults who impose adult standards on children barely out of their diapers. The author started talking about how important increasing pre-school teachers' salaries is towards improving the quality of the pre-school experience. She also tried to differentiate child care from pre-school; which, according to her, are merged in practice.
Throughout all this, the parents are largely absent from the process; as if preschool child development responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the teachers. However, as I was approaching the end of the book, the author started going back to how parents contribute to how their children develop into members of society (if I'm allowed to refer to Jean-Jacques Rousseau here). Speaking of Rousseau, the book actually mentioned the École Maternelle en France which aims to train pre-schoolers to become French (the first time I read this was in Bringing Up Bébé).
As I approached the end of the book, I finally realise what I think the author wants to say, the elevator pitch, if you will: as adults, we need to allow children to be children and to provide the environment that allows them to act as such.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for dropping by!
Before moving on, please share your thoughts or comments about the post. :)
Thanks again!