What Small Kids Need

[Wolf DeVoon]

A list of what small kids (infant to age 5) need from their parents:

safe from harm

safe from disease

free from parental upset and worry

given physical challenges

given words for objects

encouraged to discover selfhood in detail

taught life, care, and empathy

assured of protection always

given classroom and playgroups

shown how to navigate in the world

shown good and evil (danger)

W.

Edited June 24, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Judith]

A list of what small kids (infant to age 5) need from their parents:

safe from harm

safe from disease

free from parental upset and worry

given physical challenges

given words for objects

encouraged to discover selfhood in detail

taught life, care, and empathy

assured of protection always

given classroom and playgroups

shown how to navigate in the world

shown good and evil (danger)

I'll take issue with "given classroom and playgroups". Why is it important for children of any age to mingle with groups of people their own age?

It's always seemed artificial and barbaric to me to group kids by age and put them in classrooms. It seems far preferable to me to integrate them into the life of people of all ages mixed together.

Judith

[BAMF]

^I agree with that to a degree, Judith. Certain age groups of children are learning similar things and should be grouped that way (not sure if 'grouped' is the wisest word here) sometimes, but they should also be given a chance to interact with people of all ages. I remember being a child and being in awe of all the 'grown-ups'. I had hardly any interaction with the other age groups.

"When you're big you just miss how you lived and when you're a kid you just wish you were big."

(I can see how "...children of their own age" could be implied in that statement, but it wasn't really that specific.)

Edited June 25, 2007 by Kori

[BaalChatzaf]

I'll take issue with "given classroom and playgroups". Why is it important for children of any age to mingle with groups of people their own age?

It's always seemed artificial and barbaric to me to group kids by age and put them in classrooms. It seems far preferable to me to integrate them into the life of people of all ages mixed together.

Judith

Children are boxed and packaged by age for the convenience of the school staff, not for the good of the children.

Blame it on Horace Mann who wanted a system like they had in Prussia, a machine for stamping out Good Little Citizens who would grow up to be Good Adult Citizens, paying their tax and not complaining.

The classical one room school-house is closer to what you are talking about.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited June 25, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

There is a positive case for classroom and playgroup experiences. At age 4 to 4-1/2, preschool two hours a day, 4 or 5 days a week, with little kid uniforms, contribute to the child's progress in three ways. It is the first occasion for a kid to independently perceive, grasp, and deal with something new, without Mom and Dad there to intervene or excuse the kid from the challenge of age-appropriate exploration. It establishes what school is broadly about: a teacher, a group of peers, distinct personalities among the kids, sitting together quietly, taking turns, getting ready in the morning and getting picked up when school is over. Days of the week, time of day, discussion of what happened each day are new intellectual tasks.

At age 5 or 5-1/2, kindergarten introduces real schoolwork: counting to 100, single digit addition, wider range of subject matter, phonetics, consonants and vowels, simple word spelling and usage, simple reading, daily homework, achievement testing. Lessons on the playground are equally important.

We view our daughter's education as 1/3 schoolroom, 1/3 home study with Mom and Dad, and 1/3 computer games that reinforce spelling, math, problem solving, navigation, and cursor-mouse-hand coordination. So, classroom experience is important as an element of out-of-home exploration, but it's a small part of our kid's education. I'm hoping to continue her gymnastics training, one or two hours a week with semi-pro coaches, because it really helps with coordination and upper body strength.

Your kid's mileage may vary, but I want mine to study everything and feel confident in numerous settings that require following instructions to achieve self-control, practice, and progressively more challenging mental/physical feats.

W.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Judith]

There is a positive case for classroom and playgroup experiences. At age 4 to 4-1/2, preschool two hours a day, 4 or 5 days a week, with little kid uniforms, contribute to the child's progress in three ways. It is the first occasion for a kid to independently perceive, grasp, and deal with something new, without Mom and Dad there to intervene or excuse the kid from the challenge of age-appropriate exploration. It establishes what school is broadly about: a teacher, a group of peers, distinct personalities among the kids, sitting together quietly, taking turns, getting ready in the morning and getting picked up when school is over. Days of the week, time of day, discussion of what happened each day are new intellectual tasks.

My objection to age-grouping includes school. I never had kids, but if I had, I'd have home schooled them. I agree that they need to get away from their parents and interact with others apart from the parents' perspective, but that can happen in any wide variety of contexts: music or athletic lessons, parties, family gatherings, meeting other kids on the street, etc. I've always thought that the age-grouping that happens in big schools alienates the generations from each other, as Kori noted. To many kids, the elderly aren't even people, and middle-aged people are simply incomprehensible. I've taken lessons as an adult in which I was the only adult student; all the others were kids. I had no problem with it, and I think it's a natural way to learn; grouped with your ability peers, not your age peers.

Judith

[Wolf DeVoon]

music or athletic lessons, parties, family gatherings, meeting other kids on the street

We blocked all of those as inapprioriate or downright damaging 'education.' Playing with neighbor kids is very carefully supervised. Remember, we're talking about little kids, age 3-5. Infants and toddlers age 0-3 have no business being anywhere except arm's length reach of Mom and Dad or in a fully fenced play area or indoor kid-safe play room. Rendering a house toddler-safe is a huge, ongoing process of vigilance, in kitchens, bathrooms, laundry, bedrooms, windows, doors, electrical outlets, lamps, etc.

Judith, I respect your wishes as a human being. Unfortunately, parents of small kids are extremely busy on the list of duties at the top of this thread. Top priority is kid safety.

W.

[Chris Grieb]

Wolf; My reaction is you will not be rising individualists.

The idea of four and five year olds in some sort of uniform suggests you are preparing your children for an Anthem-like future.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

For once I disagree with you. Do you know anything about child psychology? Clothing similar to other children makes no impact whatsoever on a toddler's mind. He doodies and pees in all clothes indiscriminately. Slightly older kids get just as much mud on a uniform as on less similar clothing.

All cry and laugh and play and learn and grow. Uniforms are only important psychologically much later in life (armies, etc.).

Uniforms do make kids easier to identify quickly by adults, thus be able to run to their aid more effectively when needed.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Chris,

The basic idea of school uniforms for little kids is to give them equal rank, so to speak, otherwise it's a competition in cute/cool/cheap/expensive/impractical, which is more appropriate in middle school and high school. My kid gets to choose a lot of her wardrobe within certain fixed guidelines: you have to wear shorts and shirt or a dress in the grocery store. Putting on a school uniform is part of going to school, which is a workplace of learning. Michael was right about it color-coding who belongs where.

We have a happy kid who sings and chats and chirps all day, except in school, where she's learning to keep quiet, follow instructions, mind her own business, and take turns. She says school is fun.

W.

[Chris Grieb]

Michael and Wolf;

I'll think about the uniform question. I am a bachelor and don't have any children so I am open to the insights of those who do.

Wolf; I would hope you would have a problem turning children over to the care of the state.

[bmacwilliam]

My objection to age-grouping includes school. I never had kids, but if I had, I'd have home schooled them.

Why would you consider home schooling superior?

Up to what age would you hypothetically do this?

Bob

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wolf; I would hope you would have a problem turning children over to the care of the state.

We have a lot more choice than most parents. We can afford private schools. The problem is which school, for what reason. The next couple years, I'm looking for good teachers, good security, and suitable logistics. But soon, I need to settle in a medium-sized town, in a kid-populous neighborhood. Public primary school within walking distance, backed by a lot of home tutoring, seems best.

Every kid is slightly different. Every family is different professionally, culturally, and in size. My wife and I have one little one to look after. Pretty easy job.

W.

[Chris Grieb]

Bob;

I personally know of a family that the children have been home schooled up thru high school. The oldest boy is now attending UVA.

I suspect that most homeschoolers probably stop after the 6th grade. Looking for a good school system after that period.

[Judith]

My objection to age-grouping includes school. I never had kids, but if I had, I'd have home schooled them.

Why would you consider home schooling superior?

Up to what age would you hypothetically do this?

To answer your second question first, I'd do it until they were ready for college. I've never considered moderation to be a virtue.

I'd consider it superior because I'd be able to teach them real, useful things, like science and logic and REAL history and correct English, as opposed to the dumbed-down, politically correct versions of these subjects they MIGHT learn in a public school. And they wouldn't be indoctrinated with things like multiculturism and environmentalism-as-religion and "call a teacher if someone attacks you, don't defend yourself" and all the other unspeakable crap they teach kids in schools these days.

I'd also consider it superior because I'd be able to bring up kids isolated from the popular culture and its attitudes by keeping TV out of the house, encouraging respect instead of contempt between the generations, not instilling authoritarianism and passive acceptance of whatever authorities say, and eliminating peer pressure. They wouldn't "fit in" when they got to college -- but then, most worthwhile people don't fit in with popular culture anyway. They'd be able to assess it, take what they want, and leave the rest. And they'd have the tools with which to do it, and a capacity for enjoying life to the fullest as a result of a classical education.

Judith

[bmacwilliam]

My objection to age-grouping includes school. I never had kids, but if I had, I'd have home schooled them.

Why would you consider home schooling superior?

Up to what age would you hypothetically do this?

To answer your second question first, I'd do it until they were ready for college. I've never considered moderation to be a virtue.

I'd consider it superior because I'd be able to teach them real, useful things, like science and logic and REAL history and correct English, as opposed to the dumbed-down, politically correct versions of these subjects they MIGHT learn in a public school. And they wouldn't be indoctrinated with things like multiculturism and environmentalism-as-religion and "call a teacher if someone attacks you, don't defend yourself" and all the other unspeakable crap they teach kids in schools these days.

I'd also consider it superior because I'd be able to bring up kids isolated from the popular culture and its attitudes by keeping TV out of the house, encouraging respect instead of contempt between the generations, not instilling authoritarianism and passive acceptance of whatever authorities say, and eliminating peer pressure. They wouldn't "fit in" when they got to college -- but then, most worthwhile people don't fit in with popular culture anyway. They'd be able to assess it, take what they want, and leave the rest. And they'd have the tools with which to do it, and a capacity for enjoying life to the fullest as a result of a classical education.

Judith

I figured as much. However, perhaps in my country the average quality of the public schools are higher but it's hard to say.

The problem in your way of thinking - that somehow public school teachers are state run robot automatons with a overt left-wing agenda bound and determined to brainwash our children - is simply not the case. I have issues with public schools too, particularly elementary level where around here there's about one male teacher for every fifteen women. It ends up creating an environment too feminized for boys to thrive. But that's another discussion.

However, at the high school level, it's a better mix gender-wise. There exists every political spectrum of teacher there from the commie pinkos to the ultra-conservative whack-job bible thumpers and everywhere in between. Perhaps more importantly, the teachers are subject specialists with higher educational qualifications and usually a passion or at least a healthy interest and background in their subject. This is what makes it a valuable educational experience. I also happen to think it's important socially too, but that is also another discussion.

For a single person to believe that they can offer a quality educational experience for a young person beyond the basics, in all subject areas, to me is pure insanity. It indicates to me a pathological way of thinking so serious, that I am convinced that an unbiased psychological evaluation of parents who wished to home school their children beyond the basics would find that most, if not all of these people, would be emotionally and psychologically unfit parents. Not to mention they'd be woefully educationally underqualified.

Edit: How could one rationally conclude they'd be better qualified to teach 10-15 or more specialized subjects than 10 to 15 people with at minimum a single post-secondary degree in the subject and in many cases more advanced education? It just makes no sense at all.

Bob

Edited June 26, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Brant Gaede]

For a single person to believe that they can offer a quality educational experience for a young person beyond the basics, in all subject areas, to me is pure insanity. It indicates to me a pathological way of thinking so serious, that I am convinced that an unbiased psychological evaluation of parents who wished to home school their children beyond the basics would find that most, if not all of these people, would be emotionally and psychologically unfit parents. Not to mention they'd be woefully educationally underqualified.

Edit: How could one rationally conclude they'd be better qualified to teach 10-15 or more specialized subjects than 10 to 15 people with at minimum a single post-secondary degree in the subject and in many cases more advanced education? It just makes no sense at all.

Bob

It can be done using materials from The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The Robinsons offer a program that covers through high school including calculus. The student essentially teaches himself using a computer with a laser printer. The teachers are in the computer.

--Brant

Edited June 26, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[tjohnson]

We tried home school with one of our daughters, in grade 4 or 5, I think. We got the curriculum approved and the materials and things went ok for awhile but by the end of the year the relationship between mother/daughter was stronger than the teacher/student and she basically quit trying. To be successful at home school takes a special (very patient I would say) type of person because you need to be 2 people to your child - parent and teacher, and these are very different things.

[bmacwilliam]

For a single person to believe that they can offer a quality educational experience for a young person beyond the basics, in all subject areas, to me is pure insanity. It indicates to me a pathological way of thinking so serious, that I am convinced that an unbiased psychological evaluation of parents who wished to home school their children beyond the basics would find that most, if not all of these people, would be emotionally and psychologically unfit parents. Not to mention they'd be woefully educationally underqualified.

Edit: How could one rationally conclude they'd be better qualified to teach 10-15 or more specialized subjects than 10 to 15 people with at minimum a single post-secondary degree in the subject and in many cases more advanced education? It just makes no sense at all.

Bob

It can be done using materials from The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The Robinsons offer a program that covers through high school including calculus. The student essentially teaches himself using a computer with a laser printer. The teachers are in the computer.

--Brant

So, drop a kid in front of a computer and you're all set. Don't know how I could have missed this superior alternative.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

For a single person to believe that they can offer a quality educational experience for a young person beyond the basics, in all subject areas, to me is pure insanity. It indicates to me a pathological way of thinking so serious, that I am convinced that an unbiased psychological evaluation of parents who wished to home school their children beyond the basics would find that most, if not all of these people, would be emotionally and psychologically unfit parents. Not to mention they'd be woefully educationally underqualified.

Edit: How could one rationally conclude they'd be better qualified to teach 10-15 or more specialized subjects than 10 to 15 people with at minimum a single post-secondary degree in the subject and in many cases more advanced education? It just makes no sense at all.

Bob

It can be done using materials from The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The Robinsons offer a program that covers through high school including calculus. The student essentially teaches himself using a computer with a laser printer. The teachers are in the computer.

--Brant

So, drop a kid in front of a computer and you're all set. Don't know how I could have missed this superior alternative.

Bob, of course it's not so simple, but the program works and is extensively used. Any curious or interested parent can easily check this out.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

The context for us is pre-K, kindergarten, and 1st grade. We have a big library of kid books, workbooks, puzzles, games, and educational computer software. It's two thirds of our academic program. Classroom is important because teachers can drill concepts and skills better than Mom and Dad. Our kid got turned on to reading and writing in the classroom. She also learned some hard lessons on the school playground. Can't do that at home. It takes a mob to learn about envy, bullying, friendship, cooperation, etc.

W.

[Martin Radwin]

For a single person to believe that they can offer a quality educational experience for a young person beyond the basics, in all subject areas, to me is pure insanity. It indicates to me a pathological way of thinking so serious, that I am convinced that an unbiased psychological evaluation of parents who wished to home school their children beyond the basics would find that most, if not all of these people, would be emotionally and psychologically unfit parents. Not to mention they'd be woefully educationally underqualified.

Edit: How could one rationally conclude they'd be better qualified to teach 10-15 or more specialized subjects than 10 to 15 people with at minimum a single post-secondary degree in the subject and in many cases more advanced education? It just makes no sense at all.

Bob

There's nothing inherently pathological about the home schooling experience. Which is not to deny that there are pathological parents who choose to home school their kids and do a lousy job of it. John Holt wrote extensively about the subject of home schooling. His book "Teach Your Own" is an excellent introduction to the subject. He went on to start a newsletter to give guidance to parents who were interested in home schooling their kids. Holt was one of the early pioneers of the home schooling movement. He was a man of great intelligence and great compassion who truly had a love for kids and a respect for their abilities. He was a long time classroom teacher himself, so he got to see firsthand just how bad many schools are, not just public schools but even some elite private schools. He became an advocate of home schooling as an alternative to the many problems he observed in traditional educational environments.

10-15 specialized subjects? A large percentage of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Of the students who enter the California State University system, a significant percentage have to take remedial reading and math, because their reading and math skills leave them unprepared for college level work. And these represent the upper 50% of the high school graduates. Many high school students are unable to pass the high school exit exam now required for graduation in California. And this exam only requires about a 9th to 10th grade level of education to pass. And the drop out rate can be quite high, especially in the really bad inner city schools.

The most important skills needed for college or for alternatives to college are competence in reading, writing, and math. It is certainly not necessary to attend school for 12 years to acquire these skills. The best way develop skill at reading is to read lots of great books. Access to a good library or bookstore should more than suffice. The best way to develop skill at writing is to do lots of writing, as well as reading the works of great writers. None of this requires classroom instruction. Basic math skills can also be learned outside of a classroom setting, as Brant pointed out. With the availability of internet classes, options for alternatives to the classroom continue to develop.

Martin

[BaalChatzaf]

The most important skills needed for college or for alternatives to college are competence in reading, writing, and math. It is certainly not necessary to attend school for 12 years to acquire these skills. The best way develop skill at reading is to read lots of great books. Access to a good library or bookstore should more than suffice. The best way to develop skill at writing is to do lots of writing, as well as reading the works of great writers. None of this requires classroom instruction. Basic math skills can also be learned outside of a classroom setting, as Brant pointed out. With the availability of internet classes, options for alternatives to the classroom continue to develop.

Martin

What does one do in training youngsters in chemistry and physics. How many homes have the makings of a proper laboratory?

Reading, writing and mathematics is basically ink on paper material. But a work-shop or laboratory is a different matter

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

The most important skills needed for college or for alternatives to college are competence in reading, writing, and math. It is certainly not necessary to attend school for 12 years to acquire these skills. The best way develop skill at reading is to read lots of great books. Access to a good library or bookstore should more than suffice. The best way to develop skill at writing is to do lots of writing, as well as reading the works of great writers. None of this requires classroom instruction. Basic math skills can also be learned outside of a classroom setting, as Brant pointed out. With the availability of internet classes, options for alternatives to the classroom continue to develop.

Martin

What does one do in training youngsters in chemistry and physics. How many homes have the makings of a proper laboratory?

Reading, writing and mathematics is basically ink on paper material. But a work-shop or laboratory is a different matter

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, of course this a good point. Being a former (public school) physics teacher myself with a storeroom full of gadgets and equipment it's not difficult to see how trying to teach any type of hands-on labs at home would be almost impossible.

Martin: "He was a man of great intelligence and great compassion who truly had a love for kids and a respect for their abilities. He was a long time classroom teacher himself,"

Well, that makes him a whole helluva lot more qualified that most, if not all, parents doesn't it? That's my point, and even still he'd most likely still not be properly qualified for many secondary school subjects.

Martin: "A large percentage of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Of the students who enter the California State University system, a significant percentage have to take remedial reading and math, because their reading and math skills leave them unprepared for college level work. And these represent the upper 50% of the high school graduates. "

That's the difference between there and here. This is simply not the case here and I guess that means I'm discussing this issue from a different perspective.

Martin: "The most important skills needed for college or for alternatives to college are competence in reading, writing, and math."

Hmm... If you entered University level science here without a few years background, especially in Chemistry and Physics, I think you'd be sunk.

In any case, I think it's more than arrogant for parents to assume they can do a better job even though they have no discernable qualifications at all and that my main point.

What happens (and I've seen it first hand from the inside) is that the public system tends to spend an enormous amount of money on "at-risk" students. The truth is, politically incorrect or not, is that good students generally acheive regardless of the environment or class size or anything else, while the troubled kids basically very rarely acheive regardless of how many resources are thrown at them. Money, tons of it, is spent on the bottom end of the spectrum with very little if anything to show for it - perhaps with some exceptions. Usually these exceptions are "tough love" approaches and don't require extra dough anyway.

The truth is that spending less money, a LOT less money on the troubled kids is the single best way to increase the overall quality of education. Not a popular viewpoint.

Bob

[Judith]

That's the difference between there and here. This is simply not the case here and I guess that means I'm discussing this issue from a different perspective.

. . .

Hmm... If you entered University level science here without a few years background, especially in Chemistry and Physics, I think you'd be sunk.

Where is "here"?

I know two couples who homeschool their kids. In one instance, the oldest went to college last year. The kids all seem to be doing very well indeed! They speak coherently in complete sentences, they're polite and can hold conversations with adults, and they seem happy and well-adjusted.

Wolf mentioned envy and bullying. Those are things I'd rather kids learn about from history books than by first-hand experience. I don't see any useful lessons in being thrown to the wolves at a tender age; at a later age, one is better able to understand it and deal with it without being traumatized, and most of the problem disappears when one interacts with fully-socialized grown-ups anyway.

Judith