Sometimes, parents can learn more from their children than the other way around. The other day, my two-and-a-half-year old daughter engaged in a novel form of play with her alphabet blocks. She took a big white wooden letter R, turned it on its side and said "This is a rabbit." Then she took a red B and did the same thing, proclaiming it a bear. One by one, she propped the letters up on their sides on her train table (after tossing all the tracks on the floor) in what she called a "petting zoo." She did this for 15 minutes, uninterrupted, before turning to another toy.
Now, picture her in a "structured" learning environment. A set period of time to play with the alphabet blocks, sharing them with a dozen or more other children, being "taught" how to put them correctly in sequence, name the words they start, etc. Would she exercise her imagination by turning letters into animals? Would she have the time and space to play alone for 15 minutes? Or would she be too busy fighting off other kids for access to the blocks, or be forced to sit still and watch a teacher instruct her in the "correct" use of the letter R?
This week, Canadians were confronted with yet another report extolling the benefits of Early Childhood Education (ECE), this time as early as age two. The Early Years Study 3, published by a Canadian group called the Margaret and Wallace McCain Family Foundation, focuses heavily on the advantages that ECE would produce for children and the economy. It somewhat apocalyptically warns that "our survival as a species will depend on our children acquiring the skills they will need to cope with the social and environmental revolutions of the 21st century," implying that the fate of the entire planet rests on a Scandinavian model of state-sponsored child care.
But the report does not talk about what is lost with ECE - and that is critical.
The first loss is creativity. Two recent studies out of MIT and Berkeley University found that direct instruction can actually limit young children's learning. As an article recently printed in the National Post noted: "Teaching is a very effective way to get children to learn something specific- But it also makes children less likely to discover unexpected information and to draw unexpected conclusions."
The second loss is attention. A soon-to-be published study by scholars at the University of Notre Dame shows that birth spacing - the number of years between kids - increases reading and math scores for first-born children. Why? Because the parents have more time to devote to the child before a sibling comes along. So why would parents then put their children into group care and force them to compete with a classroom of other toddlers for a teacher's attention?
The third loss is parenting ability and affection. The latest data for this come from Sweden, where 92% of children aged 18 months to five years are in daycare, which is 90% subsidized by the state. According to Swedish researcher Jonas Himmelstrand, two decades into this experiment, the Swedes are witnessing a number of adverse outcomes, including psychological problems in children. These are attributed to a lack of attachment of infants to their parents in early life as well as a reduction in parents' sense of responsibility for - and lack of practice in caring for - their children.
Are these losses offset by the gains of ECE? The question itself assumes that those gains are real to begin with. A Quebec study conducted in 2010 by the think-tank CIRANO found that the emphasis on daycare has actually led to worse learning outcomes: "The evidence presented shows that [increased daycare attendance] has not enhanced school readiness or child early literacy skills in general, with negative significant effects on the [picture and vocabulary test] scores of children aged five and possibly negative for children of age four.''
When you factor in the billions of dollars a year it would cost to implement ECE for all Canadian two-tofive-year-olds, it becomes clear that there are better things to do with this money, including leaving it in parents' pockets so that one can choose to work less and parent more for those first few years. "We need to turn our family policy junkyard into a human development system," says the Early Years 3 report. No, we don't. We need to turn human development back over to families, where it belongs.
Source:
nationalpost.com
Now, picture her in a "structured" learning environment. A set period of time to play with the alphabet blocks, sharing them with a dozen or more other children, being "taught" how to put them correctly in sequence, name the words they start, etc. Would she exercise her imagination by turning letters into animals? Would she have the time and space to play alone for 15 minutes? Or would she be too busy fighting off other kids for access to the blocks, or be forced to sit still and watch a teacher instruct her in the "correct" use of the letter R?
This week, Canadians were confronted with yet another report extolling the benefits of Early Childhood Education (ECE), this time as early as age two. The Early Years Study 3, published by a Canadian group called the Margaret and Wallace McCain Family Foundation, focuses heavily on the advantages that ECE would produce for children and the economy. It somewhat apocalyptically warns that "our survival as a species will depend on our children acquiring the skills they will need to cope with the social and environmental revolutions of the 21st century," implying that the fate of the entire planet rests on a Scandinavian model of state-sponsored child care.
But the report does not talk about what is lost with ECE - and that is critical.
The first loss is creativity. Two recent studies out of MIT and Berkeley University found that direct instruction can actually limit young children's learning. As an article recently printed in the National Post noted: "Teaching is a very effective way to get children to learn something specific- But it also makes children less likely to discover unexpected information and to draw unexpected conclusions."
The second loss is attention. A soon-to-be published study by scholars at the University of Notre Dame shows that birth spacing - the number of years between kids - increases reading and math scores for first-born children. Why? Because the parents have more time to devote to the child before a sibling comes along. So why would parents then put their children into group care and force them to compete with a classroom of other toddlers for a teacher's attention?
The third loss is parenting ability and affection. The latest data for this come from Sweden, where 92% of children aged 18 months to five years are in daycare, which is 90% subsidized by the state. According to Swedish researcher Jonas Himmelstrand, two decades into this experiment, the Swedes are witnessing a number of adverse outcomes, including psychological problems in children. These are attributed to a lack of attachment of infants to their parents in early life as well as a reduction in parents' sense of responsibility for - and lack of practice in caring for - their children.
Are these losses offset by the gains of ECE? The question itself assumes that those gains are real to begin with. A Quebec study conducted in 2010 by the think-tank CIRANO found that the emphasis on daycare has actually led to worse learning outcomes: "The evidence presented shows that [increased daycare attendance] has not enhanced school readiness or child early literacy skills in general, with negative significant effects on the [picture and vocabulary test] scores of children aged five and possibly negative for children of age four.''
When you factor in the billions of dollars a year it would cost to implement ECE for all Canadian two-tofive-year-olds, it becomes clear that there are better things to do with this money, including leaving it in parents' pockets so that one can choose to work less and parent more for those first few years. "We need to turn our family policy junkyard into a human development system," says the Early Years 3 report. No, we don't. We need to turn human development back over to families, where it belongs.
Source:
nationalpost.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment