What about play?

[FairProspects]

I'm kind of reeling from all the threads about 3 and 4 year olds and their curriculum needs. Where are all those who believe in the importance of play for brain development?

 

I'm not talking about the idea that children have plenty of time to play when they are done with their school-work. I'm talking about the concept that play is THE curriculum for under 5's and still takes up the majority of the day for the under-8's.

 

I'm talking about the kind of play that is imaginative, engaging, and is often more difficult for both child and parent than doing workbooks and school because it requires so much energy, time, and creative interaction.

 

Where are the people who believe in and have seen the importance of play in the early years? Maybe we can go over some of the reasons why it is so crucial, because I'm feeling a little lonely in my philosophy right now and could use some encouragement. :D

[8filltheheart]

I'm kind of reeling from all the threads about 3 and 4 year olds and their curriculum needs. Where are all those who believe in the importance of play for brain development?

 

I'm not talking about the idea that children have plenty of time to play when they are done with their school-work. I'm talking about the concept that play is THE curriculum for under 5's and still takes up the majority of the day for the under-8's.

 

I'm talking about the kind of play that is imaginative, engaging, and is often more difficult for both child and parent than doing workbooks and school because it requires so much energy, time, and creative interaction.

 

Where are the people who believe in and have seen the importance of play in the early years? Maybe we can go over some of the reasons why it is so crucial, because I'm feeling a little lonely in my philosophy right now and could use some encouragement. :D

 

I don't know what threads you are talking about b/c I only click on a few titles on the different forums, but I most definitely fall into the camp that believes complete freedom to explore/play/imagine is the most vital activity for developing higher level thinking skills.

 

So, if you just want to know someone is out here that believes that, I am.

 

(FWIW, I have never taught pre-school and I do minimal K-2. :D)

[Tiramisu]

I don't know what threads you are talking about b/c I only click on a few titles on the different forums, but I most definitely fall into the camp that believes complete freedom to explore/play/imagine is the most vital activity for developing higher level thinking skills.

 

So, if you just want to know someone is out here that believes that, I am.

 

(FWIW, I have never taught pre-school and I do minimal K-2. :D)

 

Thank you for posting this. We know how successful you have been with this approach and it's very encouraging.

[Tawlas]

I'm one of the ones asking about starting K early, but let me be VERY clear: Our schooling takes an hour or less per day, depending on ds4. And at least half of that is us playing games with some sort of obvious educational component (like magnet letters or board games with counting). I say obvious becuase I really believe that play is learning. It's actually a pet peeve of mine when toys are advertised as "educational" because it implies that one that isn't advertised as such isn't educational!

 

Play is absolutely critical in our house (to development and my sanity lol). We live on a ranch, my kids are often outside before I wake up riding their bikes. I believe kids of all ages need hours and hours of semi-unsupervised (as in very little interference), unstructured play. the ability to play independently, by oneself or with siblings, without an adult, is also highly prized. I literally only play with my kids during school time. I rotate their toys weekly to keep clean up hassles to a minimum and interest high and I'm always on the look out for good, open ended toys (favorites are wooden train tracks, duplo blocks and building blocks).

 

I really want to give my kids an old fashioned childhood, like I had or my parents had. Limited screen time, lots of outdoors, ranch/house chores, and free play. I'm big on the books Last Child in the Woods and Free Range Kids.

 

Can't wait to read more responses!

[BinahYeteirah]

I would say I believe that, but once there are older kids "doing school" I have found the younger ones beg for their own workbooks. It still only takes a few minutes per day, but they want to do what their older siblings are doing. Also, as you say, it can take time and energy to facilitate meaningful play. When I am spending so much time on bookwork with my older kids, sometimes it is easier to just give my younger ones a workbook to color or write or cut. I don't consider it to be necessary or required, but they enjoy it.

 

Even with my first grader, I would like to do less formal work, but she begged to do math like her older sister and insisted on her own handwriting book, etc. Once they are begging, I'm not going to say no, and it only takes a few minutes for each book. My first grader was actually starting to get angry with me each time the mail carrier came. "Where's my math book? You haven't bought it for me yet???"

[NicAnn]

We have started a curriculum for Dd4. I think it's important to learn to sit and follow instructions, and I'd prefer if she learns that in a fun environment...which is what I hope our school is teaching her. However, this takes a total of an hour a day, and the rest of time is play.

 

I think play is very important! We watch little to no tv (maybe an hour a week), so she needs to entertain herself in other ways. There have been a lot of times where I've listened in on her play and realized that she was sad/happy/concerned about something going on in her life (like excitement over grandparents coming, sadness over Daddy's new work schedule, etc).

 

More important than inside play, is outside play. Last Child in the Woods is a great book. While I really didn't learn anything new necessarily, it certainly reaffirmed my beliefs.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I'm kind of reeling from all the threads about 3 and 4 year olds and their curriculum needs. Where are all those who believe in the importance of play for brain development?

 

I'm not talking about the idea that children have plenty of time to play when they are done with their school-work. I'm talking about the concept that play is THE curriculum for under 5's and still takes up the majority of the day for the under-8's.

 

I'm talking about the kind of play that is imaginative, engaging, and is often more difficult for both child and parent than doing workbooks and school because it requires so much energy, time, and creative interaction.

 

Where are the people who believe in and have seen the importance of play in the early years? Maybe we can go over some of the reasons why it is so crucial, because I'm feeling a little lonely in my philosophy right now and could use some encouragement. :D

 

:seeya: Here I am!

 

We don't do any formal schooling until first grade. Kindergarten is not required and the kids know that they can opt in or out daily. They have all learned to read at their own pace and I'm an oddball in that I don't do reading lessons on any kind of schedule. When they express interest, I teach a bit. If they want to back off, we back off. They ebb and flow and we've had incredible success respecting their natural cycles of learning in this way.

 

I select toys that are brain food and they spend the vast majority of their day playing. When they begin formally begin school in first grade, it's for about 2 hours a day. My oldest will probably be up to 3 hours a day this year.

[MrsMe]

Me! I let dd play first. Up until last year, (she just turned 11) I let her play first then do her schoolwork, starting about 11am. She is 11 and doing 5th grade this year. I care none. We are better late than early people. It's evident that she plays and has one heck of an imagination than that of her other friends, mainly the ps-ed friend hardly "plays". I find the art of playing extremely important and having a conversation. I saw what the pre-k-2 curriculums contained, things like community workers, was pure twaddle. Like you need a curriculum to point and tell them while you're out driving around what a fireman is?

 

I agree playing with good toys; blocks, crayons, things that build imagination, not tv or videos or anything already done for them.

 

Unless they crave some sort of schoolwork, I let kids be kids. Seems to be a lost art. The hurry up and grow up, hurry up and read, hurry up and learn stuff, just so it's repeated to death isn't our motto.

[zenjenn]

I sent both my kids to preschools that allowed a lot of play. I really felt the preschool years were the BEST years to be at school, where a good teacher has liberty to do what she feels is best for the children, and the preschooler in a great developmental phase for experiencing a few hours of separation from home and family. At least, it served my kids well in terms of developing some independence and a sense of autonomous self. In the case of my own kids, I have no doubt they would have been clingier children for years to come if they hadn't had their preschool experiences when they did.

 

Kinder homeschool in this house was minimal. 1-2 hours a day, and then free play, drawing, scissor skills, etc. I had specific goals - be a fluent early reader by the end of K and have basic math & study skills. Mission more than accomplished.

Edited August 21, 2011 by zenjenn

[FairProspects]

It's evident that she plays and has one heck of an imagination than that of her other friends, mainly the ps-ed friend hardly "plays".

 

I've noticed this too among the neighborhood kids. Ds's friends are only going into 1st and 2nd grades, but if it doesn't involve electronics or cards, most of them have no idea how to play. They had never played with Legos, or marble sets or toys. It kind of shook me, to be honest. They were like mini-teenagers running around.

[FairProspects]

I had specific goals - be a fluent early reader by the end of K and have basic math & study skills. Mission more than accomplished.

 

This is close to what I mean. I don't mean to pick on you and I'm certainly glad that it worked for your family, but if these had been my goals for K, ds never would have gotten to play because we would have had to spend all day studying to get to that point. These skills were just that hard for him at that age due to various factors.

 

So, if your (metaphorical you) goals are contradictory to play, which one trumps? Play or studying? In our house, it would be play, even if it pushes the skills goals off until later. That's one of the reasons we chose homeschooling. But sometimes, I just feel the push of academics, and feel like we must be lazy or stupid or something, and that's when I need to revisit why I feel play is so important and remember that this is an intentioned decision.

 

ETA: Oh, and my younger one asks for school too, but when I sat down to do some with him I realized it was less about him wanting to do school and more about him wanting the time and focused attention that I spend with my older one while doing school. He still isn't really ready for school, he just wants Mom. And that's something that I don't see discussed often on these boards for young learners. Maybe some young kids are ready for school, but a lot also want that Mom time but during play.

Edited August 21, 2011 by FairProspects

[zenjenn]

Hmm, well honestly, if my daughter had been a slower reader I probably would have still spent the 1-2 hours studying phonics and basic math and still let her play the rest of the time, and accepted that she wasn't ready.

 

Even though she learned to read quickly, I don't think emotionally she would have been ready to do "real" school for longer than we did. As it was, she is accelerated and really was reading at my Kindergarten "goal" levels within a few months, but I never pushed it further.

 

Academically she could have been reading 2nd and 3rd grade chapter books, but emotionally she still wanted to read picture books about kittens. And so we did.

[8filltheheart]

So, if your (metaphorical you) goals are contradictory to play, which one trumps? Play or studying? In our house, it would be play, even if it pushes the skills goals off until later. That's one of the reasons we chose homeschooling. But sometimes, I just feel the push of academics, and feel like we must be lazy or stupid or something, and that's when I need to revisit why I feel play is so important and remember that this is an intentioned decision.

 

I don't have specific goals that are "firm" for them when they are in k-2. When they aren't mentally mature, they may not be able to learn whatever the goals might have been, and if they are, they may fly ahead of the goals. I simply work with them where they are, wherever that may be. I don't make my "behind" or my "ahead" kids work longer or shorter than any of my other kids.

 

FWIW, not doing any academics at a young age has not hinder my children's learning in the slightest. ;) If that is what you feel lead to do, don't worry about others are doing. If they feel compelled to do pre-school or academic primary grades, it does not impact you or your children one way or the other; just as your not doing academics w/ yours doesn't impact them. :grouphug: FWIW, if not doing academics at an early age did impact my kids negatively......I'm glad it did! B/c I wouldn't know what to do w/a couple of my kids b/c at 12 and 15 they are way ahead of me in so much as it is! :lol:

[KristenR]

I fully believe that each parent should do what they feel is best for their child. I don' think there is a straight answer that applies to everyone across the board. Some child would not excel in having a loose structure imposed. However there are plenty that I have met that thrive with it. My oldest dd expressed a love of books and desire to read at a very young age. She couldn't get enough of them. I had no idea what to do with her at first because it seemed so contrary to what society tries to dictate. Luckily for me I ignored what some well intentioned people tried to say and it lead me on the path to homeschooling. I instead went on the cues of my dd and gave her an environment in which she could thrive.

 

However my middle daughter does not have the same attention span at her age than my older daughter did. I could not imagine expecting her to follow her sister's path. Different child- different way of living and learning. My middle daughter thrives with creative and free play. It was just recently that she's grown an interest in books. Before that I couldn't get her to sit through a small board book. I have noticed though that within the passed few months she is growing more and more curious about big sister's "school". She wanted her own workbook as well so I picked up some from Target and she colors and scribbles away. I can see how having older siblings around jump-starts their curiosity about school. During my older dd's lesson middle dd comes and goes from the table as she pleases.

 

I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't buy into the theory that there is some standard for what a child should or should not be doing. I have noticed such an astronomical difference in temperament and learning style in my three alone that I couldn't imagine how anyone would be able to believe its got to be all or nothing. In my opinion its dependent on the child.

 

In any event, I can't claim this for all homeschoolers, but for us, whether we are playing or "schooling" it all really is play.

[NittanyJen]

I am with the OP... I don't understand wanting 'curriculum' formally for the under-K crowd. They learn fine by playing and being played with. Their toys have colors and get counted, and added to and taken away. They color with crayons and name things and look at books. They go outdoors and count steps as they walk up and down them, sometimes by ones, sometimes by twos or threes. They sing their ABC's and other songs. You take them for walks and explore flowers and bugs and clouds and rain and the world. You talk to them while you cook and measure. many kids love doing simple mazes and matching games and drawing shapes, painting and doing puzzles and making an playing with play dough. They start to play simple board games that rely on color or easy counting, which teaches turn taking. They need time left to their own devices to build with bricks and blocks and trains and their imaginations.

 

None of this requires a curriculum, and barring special needs, has them kindergarten ready and then some.

 

My kids were in PS at that age, and I made sure they got the half day Kindergarten option, because even my SN son needed afternoon naps and free play more than a full day of school.

[desiree77]

I don't use curriculum until 1st grade, and then it's pretty light (like a phonics book). I let my under 8s play all day and I read to them. That's their education!

 

We have tv and video games, but it's limited to 30 minutes on Saturdays and the times that I leave the house alone and dh let them.

[NanceXToo]

I'm with you! I did not use a curriculum for preschool, nothing formal, no workbooks (other than occasionally doing mazes because he liked them), no worksheets etc. It was very informal, play-based, conversational, interest-led and so on.

 

My son will be 6 in November and I do plan on starting K with him in September- it is a curriculum, but it's a Waldorf-inspired, hands-on, not overly academic one that won't take us more than an hour or so a day to do.

[In The Great White North]

Waldorf?

 

Search (and google) Waldorf kindergartens. There are a lot of them out there, with moms groups, websites, and books. All the info and reasons behind it you could possibly want (or have time to read before the dc turned 20.)

 

No academics at all. No alphabet. No numbers. Just a routine, songs, games, crafts, cooking, free time, playground time, story time, a rhythm.

 

And they start 1st grade later than usual (6-7 years old.)

[SKL]

Interesting - I have two daughters who are both 4 years old. Sure, they both enjoy playing, but DD2 is passionate about play. Mostly she adores creating all sorts of drama around her dollhouse. DD1 will join in, but most of the "creative ideas" come from DD2.

 

And on the academic side, DD2 is the one who is way ahead and passionate about reading and writing. Depending on the day, reading is her favorite or second-favorite activity. DD1 (soon to be 5) is the one who will need to be gently guided toward schoolwork.

 

So I don't see play/schoolwork as an either-or choice. I think the right balance is going to be different depending on the child. If DD2 gets joy from reading a book or writing a note, I'm not going to forbid her. And if DD1 isn't drawn toward imaginitive play, I don't know how I'd push her into that. (She's more of an organizer, finds comfort in status quo. Hmm, puzzles . . . .)

 

To date, I haven't used a "curriculum"; just sat and read with the girls and pointed out stuff in their environment. The time I've spent doing this has probably totaled less than 30 minutes most days. I'm going to step up the pace now that the girls are ready for KG.

[boscopup]

I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive. It sounds like people are making assumptions that kids using curriculum prior to K are doing school for several hours a day? :confused:

 

I have "curriculum" for my 4 year old. You know how much school he does? MAYBE 10 minutes a day, if that. Sometimes we don't "do school" for a week or two or three... I "do school" on a "when he asks to" basis. In K, I'll start requiring phonics, math, and handwriting (phonics and handwriting will likely be combined, since he has the motor skills to do so). That should take us roughly 30 minutes a day. He sleeps for 11-12 hours a day, so that leaves 11.5-12.5 hours of play time. And let me tell you, he is very imaginative in his play!

 

My 7 year old second grader, who is accelerated, does about 2 hours a day. He therefore has about 9-10 hours of play time and likewise is very imaginative. Doing school, even formal school, doesn't necessarily mean no play time!

 

I didn't school my 7 year old in the preK years at all. I tried at various points (as many first time moms do). He wasn't ready for anything formal. He resisted being "taught" in that manner. I backed off and let him do his thing. He taught himself all the K stuff before K. So I agree that kids can do great without curriculum prior to K. My 4 year old is not the same child though. He actually wasn't picking up on colors and numbers and counting and such on his own. When I pulled out a R&S ABC series workbook, he learned those things within a couple weeks. It was amazing the difference. He learns differently than my oldest. And again, we do very little "school" with him... 10 minutes is not much. It is enough for him to learn quite a bit though, and it pushed him into learning more in the world around him. He had a hump to get over (speech delay), so a different presentation was required for him. I don't at all regret using that little workbook to do "school". He also learned to cut and paste, which my oldest didn't learn on his own because I didn't let him use scissors. :lol:

 

Anyway, just worry about what you're doing and don't look down upon those who are doing it differently, and don't feel guilty for what you're doing either. Both routes are fine. I would be against doing an 8 hour seatwork school day for a preK'er, but I don't think people here are doing that. Most of these preK curricula are crafty type things that basically help parents think of what to do. Some need that hand holding and some don't. There's nothing wrong with that, IMO. Now if the parent is trying to push phonics and the child is resisting and crying and hating "school", it's definitely too much too soon. But keeping it short, light, and fun - I don't see anything wrong with that.

[TracyP]

I'm kind of reeling from all the threads about 3 and 4 year olds and their curriculum needs. Where are all those who believe in the importance of play for brain development?

 

I'm not talking about the idea that children have plenty of time to play when they are done with their school-work. I'm talking about the concept that play is THE curriculum for under 5's and still takes up the majority of the day for the under-8's.

 

I'm talking about the kind of play that is imaginative, engaging, and is often more difficult for both child and parent than doing workbooks and school because it requires so much energy, time, and creative interaction.

 

Where are the people who believe in and have seen the importance of play in the early years? Maybe we can go over some of the reasons why it is so crucial, because I'm feeling a little lonely in my philosophy right now and could use some encouragement. :D

 

:seeya: Hi! I so agree.

 

My dd is almost 8. She spends less than 2 hours on her schoolwork each day.

 

My ds will be 6 in October. He spends 45 min per day doing 'required by me' academics. I would be fine with him doing less if he wasn't ready for it.

 

Ds who is 4 has nothing required. He has asked to learn to read. If I thought he was ready, I would not be opposed to teaching him. However, I know he is not ready so I will not waste his or my time.

 

I know many will think this is not near enough "school". Oh well. I feel like a loner sometimes (and a slacker when I read some of the posts here) but this is one of the reasons I chose to homeschool. I feel expectations are far too high for young kids and far too low for older kids.

[KristenR]

I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive. It sounds like people are making assumptions that kids using curriculum prior to K are doing school for several hours a day? :confused:

 

I have "curriculum" for my 4 year old. You know how much school he does? MAYBE 10 minutes a day, if that. Sometimes we don't "do school" for a week or two or three... I "do school" on a "when he asks to" basis. In K, I'll start requiring phonics, math, and handwriting (phonics and handwriting will likely be combined, since he has the motor skills to do so). That should take us roughly 30 minutes a day. He sleeps for 11-12 hours a day, so that leaves 11.5-12.5 hours of play time. And let me tell you, he is very imaginative in his play!

 

My 7 year old second grader, who is accelerated, does about 2 hours a day. He therefore has about 9-10 hours of play time and likewise is very imaginative. Doing school, even formal school, doesn't necessarily mean no play time!

 

I didn't school my 7 year old in the preK years at all. I tried at various points (as many first time moms do). He wasn't ready for anything formal. He resisted being "taught" in that manner. I backed off and let him do his thing. He taught himself all the K stuff before K. So I agree that kids can do great without curriculum prior to K. My 4 year old is not the same child though. He actually wasn't picking up on colors and numbers and counting and such on his own. When I pulled out a R&S ABC series workbook, he learned those things within a couple weeks. It was amazing the difference. He learns differently than my oldest. And again, we do very little "school" with him... 10 minutes is not much. It is enough for him to learn quite a bit though, and it pushed him into learning more in the world around him. He had a hump to get over (speech delay), so a different presentation was required for him. I don't at all regret using that little workbook to do "school". He also learned to cut and paste, which my oldest didn't learn on his own because I didn't let him use scissors. :lol:

 

Anyway, just worry about what you're doing and don't look down upon those who are doing it differently, and don't feel guilty for what you're doing either. Both routes are fine. I would be against doing an 8 hour seatwork school day for a preK'er, but I don't think people here are doing that. Most of these preK curricula are crafty type things that basically help parents think of what to do. Some need that hand holding and some don't. There's nothing wrong with that, IMO. Now if the parent is trying to push phonics and the child is resisting and crying and hating "school", it's definitely too much too soon. But keeping it short, light, and fun - I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

:iagree:

[Spy Car]

The idea that one must choose between academics and play is a classic false dichotomy.

 

Bill

[kristinannie]

My DS5 is definitely ready for school. We only do about 45 minutes or less of seatwork though. Additionally, we are taking a trip around the world so we learn a lot about animals and different countries, but that really doesn't seem like school! My DD3 can hang out with us during anything she wants. She really likes seatwork and colors or plays with math manipulatives during that time. My kids spend A LOT of time playing. They play outside for 1-2 hours a day and spend about 5-6 hours a day in free play in our house. They do some very creative things. I keep art supplies handy when they want to do a project! I think play is so important at this age. They really learn a lot from playing. I don't have a problem with formal schooling if the child is ready and willing. However, one of the main reasons I do K at home is to have plenty of time to play!!!!! You are not alone!

[TracyP]

If DD2 gets joy from reading a book or writing a note, I'm not going to forbid her.

 

Had to comment on this.:001_smile: Holding to a philosophy that believes time spent in free play is better than time spent structured by a parent or teacher is very different than forbidding books, puzzles, or writing implements.:lol: I'm sure you know that but I had to clarify just in case.

[FairProspects]

The idea that one must choose between academics and play is a classic false dichotomy.

 

Bill

 

I get that. Really I do.

 

But I see a trend on the boards toward choosing a curriculum and sitting down to do "work" (and I feel this pull myself obviously) rather than accepting child's play as real work and teaching through that vehicle. Example being that a child who plays with wooden blocks will conceptually know shapes (maybe not names, but that is easy to pick up on as well). The point being if play teaches these concepts just as well and maybe better than seatwork because play is not tied to set learning objectives, why would we (again, metaphorical) do any seatwork at all in the early years and not just encourage more play?

 

Perhaps this is where I divert from Classical Education and become Waldorfy (who know, I was one of those creative drama geeks :D). I am classical for the older years, but my own experience with my young kids has me thinking differently for the little ones. Just my musings as I ponder the new school year :).

[ThreeBlessings]

I'd like to share my opinion. I caution against two things, neither of which I am saying anyone is actually doing- 1. Going to an extreme either way. Free play all day with no interactive or directed play and full blown 1st grade workbook/textbook style curriculum for a preschooler. There is a lot of in between there that is just fine. 2. Sitting at home shaking one's head at someone else who either 'uses curriculum' or 'doesn't use curriculum' for a PreKer.

 

I'd like to point out that most all 'curriculum' for preschoolers is play/fun/craft based. It just makes it easier on some moms to be able to spend time playing and initiating interactive and/or directed play to have things spelled out for them. I would think it would be very rare for a mom to take a child between 2-4 and rigorously try to educate them with curriculum that is not play based.

 

My youngest child loves to play. Everything is play to her. She is 3. No matter if she is playing alone with open ended toys, playing with mom, dad, siblings or other children in cooperative style open ended or rule based games like tag, simon says, board and card games, etc, or directed or interactive play/crafts/activities that are based around a learning theme such as letters, numbers, seasons, etc. It is all play to her and she loves to play. She rarely turns down an opportunity to play. My older two were the same way when they were preschool age. They loved to learn. Play was play was play. :)

 

That said I am planning all kinds of things for my youngest this year. She'll have lots of opportunities. Never will she be pushed to do something, but options will be there. Some of this is going to be worksheet style on a preschool level, such as lines to trace or practice cutting on, objects to match or circle, pictures to paste or color in the appropriate spot, that sort of thing. Most of it will be games, being read to, crafts, etc. I doubt she will turn down much of these opportunities.

 

Last school year at age 2 she was part of what the older kids were doing as often as she wanted to be and it will be the same this year. I had made her a backpack full of activities in ziploc baggies. Shapes to glue, stickers to stick, lacing beads, rainbow scratch paper, google eyes and pompoms, buttons to admire, etc. Also a binder with easy matching/sorting file folder type games in sheet protectors. This way she could sit with us as much as she wanted and still have things to play with. This year she will want more diverse activities and challenges. I fully intend to do my best to provide for her! :)

 

And btw I don't care what she retains or doesn't retain from any of this. I do care that she is having fun and growing as a person.

[GingerPoppy]

Me, me! I'm a big play advocate here. My daughter has limited screen time and a lot of toys that foster imagination and creativity. She's 9 1/2 (well, if you ask her, she'd say 9 and 2/3, which is extremely accurate! :) ) It amazes me to watch her on her own or with certain friends (usually younger friends or homeschool friends). They are so imaginative, and immerse themselves in hours and hours of deep play, both indoors and out. My daughter also likes to invent things as part of her play. She has made two outdoor "swings" of a sort, one involving an old hose, a fence, and a hill, and the other a rope, a branch, and a handle from an old, broken ride-on toy. Those two inventions have been used by her and neighbour kids for hours upon hours. I love what all the free play time has done for her.

 

But put her together with her age mates from public school, and the play is very different. It's usually screen based or activity based (such as swimming or hot tubbing or trampoline--not that these things are bad). She says they don't know how to play when she tries.

 

I took her out of school last spring (the spring of grade 4). Although there were many reasons (good timing, her desire to homeschool, my desire to homeschool, my concerns about academics, and the fact that I saw the light/joy-of-learning fading in her eyes), one of the reasons was that I wanted more for her at age 9. I didn't want her butt planted in a desk all day. I wanted her to be able to explore and play more.

 

Like another poster mentioned, I'm big on Last Child in the Woods and Free Range Kids.

 

On the other hand, I believe in in-depth learning, and I don't think she was getting it. It was grade four, and they were endlessly reviewing how to subtract with borrowing. She wanted to pull her hair out. And when learning new concepts, they had to copy definitions from the board, definitions written in that adult, wordy style that is incomprehensible to most kids. She didn't understand. I suspect most of them didn't. I prefer a more meaning-based style of learning. So, yes--play and academics can certainly go together. I believe there is a balance. And I believe you shouldn't turn young kids off of learning by making it too repetitive or boring... so academics can sometimes be a part of their play. (Free, child-led play is absolutely essential too, of course!)

Edited August 21, 2011 by GingerPoppy

[GingerPoppy]

ThreeBlessings, I so agree! That's how I did preschool and pre-K (K4) with my daughter, and she loved it and learned so much.

[Alte Veste Academy]

You know, I do things how I do things and I'm good with that. I don't parent anyone but my own children and I try not to judge what other people do. I originally answered the question before seeing the OP's signature, then I chuckled when I did read it. I never would have done even that much with a 4 year old but I don't judge it. I don't judge someone using a program with a young child; I simply hope they remember the adage about teaching the child, not the program. If someone wants to start a reading or math program at 4 or to do one of those early Sonlight cores or whatever other wonderful idea they have, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. And, to a certain extent, I agree with Bill about a choice being a false dichotomy. Someone else said they're not going to punish their child for wanting to write in play. Well, me either but that made me chuckle again because that is the point of the child's work being play. They learn through play. Some people do a formal program and some do not. I do not and my kids have not struggled with the first grade material when it was presented to them. There is more than one good path to the same destination.

 

On the other hand, forcing a disinterested, active young child to do seatwork (whether 30 minutes, 2 hours, 8 hours...) when they are not developmentally ready is something else entirely. If your child is eagerly responding to early attempts at formal learning, fine. My fear is that once a parent has invested time and money into a program, they are going to keep on keeping on even if the child might not be ready. Haven't most of us seen those threads before? "How do I get ds4 to sit still for his _______ lesson?!?!?!" :confused: You don't. Put it away for now. But you spent time and money and had dreams and aspirations and that is not what you want to hear.

[FairProspects]

You know, I do things how I do things and I'm good with that. I don't parent anyone but my own children and I try not to judge what other people do. I originally answered the question before seeing the OP's signature, then I chuckled when I did read it. I never would have done even that much with a 4 year old but I don't judge it.

 

I'm fairly open about the fact that I feel the push to use curriculum just as much as the next person :D. I'm just philosophizing because I find it interesting. I am trying to continue learning both about education and child development and often this does lead to changes in how I do things.

 

ETA: And I will freely admit that I use writing curriculum with ds 2 because ds 1 had a fine motor delay which required expensive OT to remediate and which I did not discover because I never tried anything academic ds 1 when he was little. My use of curriculum now may be a "fear about the security of the future" (wasn't that how the NYT put it the other day?). I'm currently trying to decide if that fear is misplaced or not and this discussion is just one more tool in the bag to help sort it out.

Edited August 21, 2011 by FairProspects

[MeaganS]

I've ready tons of posts on this message board about young children and curriculum, and EVERY time, someone chews the mother out telling her to just let them play. Sometimes it's hard for her to get her question answered even, because so many people are telling her to "just let them play." I don't think that point of view is at all under-represented on this forum.

 

Now, I'm in the crowd that is all about letting young kids be kids, but there's also absolutely nothing wrong with a little structure, either, so long as the kid is fine with it. Children are awake for many hours a day, and an hour with mommy doing structured learning in whatever form isn't going to hurt them, and often helps them.

 

I do find what the OP said a little offensive, suggesting that if a child is having to have "structured learning" for 2 hours a day then they don't have a chance to be a child. That just doesn't ring true to me. I guess that's why God sent every child to the family He did, because every parenting style is different, but I don't appreciate the idea that I'm oppressing my daughter if we "do school." My daughter who just turned three has a ridiculously long attention span and loves to "do school" with me. She loves prewriting worksheets and some of the other activities we do and usually I have to cut her off first. And it's not just about time with mommy for her. I can hand her a worksheet, go do the dishes, and come back and she'll ask for more worksheets. She loves to read with me and often asks me to read her books throughout the day. Almost every curriculum I've seen recommended for this age on this forum follows that pattern: a few worksheets, some read alouds, maybe some crafts or activities. There is nothing in that that harms a child, especially if the child enjoys it, and the child still has the opportunity to be a kid.

 

I guess I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I've never heard someone suggest spending hours upon hours for this age on this forum, and a little bit never hurt anyone. I think we should just live and let live.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I'm fairly open about the fact that I feel the push to use curriculum just as much as the next person :D. I'm just philosophizing because I find it interesting. I am trying to continue learning both about education and child development and often this does lead to changes in how I do things.

 

ETA: And I will freely admit that I use writing curriculum with ds 2 because ds 1 had a fine motor delay which required expensive OT to remediate and which I did not discover because I never tried anything academic ds 1 when he was little. My use of curriculum now may be a "fear about the security of the future" (wasn't that how the NYT put it the other day?). I'm currently trying to decide if that fear is misplaced or not and this discussion is just one more tool in the bag to help sort it out.

 

I was truly serious when I said I wasn't judging. :001_smile:

 

In the interests of full-disclosure, my excitement about homeschooling even had me planning things for my oldest in pre-k. I had been planning to homeschool since before I ever actually conceived. I was excited to start! It never got farther than plans though because, as sick as I was of waiting, it still wasn't my philosophical bent. To thine own self be true. :D

[FairProspects]

I do find what the OP said a little offensive, suggesting that if a child is having to have "structured learning" for 2 hours a day then they don't have a chance to be a child. That just doesn't ring true to me. I guess that's why God sent every child to the family He did, because every parenting style is different, but I don't appreciate the idea that I'm oppressing my daughter if we "do school."

 

I guess I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I've never heard someone suggest spending hours upon hours for this age on this forum, and a little bit never hurt anyone. I think we should just live and let live.

 

I'm sorry you feel offended. That is not my intention at all.

 

I'm merely trying to discuss a philosophy that argues play is more effective for young children than seatwork or worksheets. Obviously, you disagree. That's fine. I'm just trying to get a sense of the varying viewpoints so I can more clearly define my own teaching philosophy on the spectrum as we begin the new year. Its okay to agree to disagree. I'm referring to ideas not specific persons.

 

It seems the points get more obscure the longer the thread goes. Oh well, such is the nature of discussion forums.

[MeaganS]

If no offense was intended, then I won't take any. :001_smile:

[Spy Car]

I get that. Really I do.

 

But I see a trend on the boards toward choosing a curriculum and sitting down to do "work" (and I feel this pull myself obviously) rather than accepting child's play as real work and teaching through that vehicle. Example being that a child who plays with wooden blocks will conceptually know shapes (maybe not names, but that is easy to pick up on as well). The point being if play teaches these concepts just as well and maybe better than seatwork because play is not tied to set learning objectives, why would we (again, metaphorical) do any seatwork at all in the early years and not just encourage more play?

 

I think I (pretty famously) advocate for learning about mathematics by (in part) playing with blocks and rods. A great deal of good comes from capitalizing on a child's natural propensity to play.

 

Play is awesome, but play (alone) is not optimal. Between extremes of pushing developmentally inappropriate workbooks on children, and doing nothing "academic", there is a Third Way that includes play while fostering academic learning.

 

The Third Way is a much better choice then either of the alternatives.

 

Bill

[FairProspects]

I think I (pretty famously) advocate for learning about mathematics by (in part) playing with blocks and rods. A great deal of good comes from capitalizing on a child's natural propensity to play.

 

Play is awesome, but play (alone) is not optimal. Between extremes of pushing developmentally inappropriate workbooks on children, and doing nothing "academic", there is a Third Way that includes play while fostering academic learning.

 

The Third Way is a much better choice then either of the alternatives.

 

Bill

 

And I hope I've found it. And I hope that since I question it frequently by looking at the extremes, this serves as evidence that I have found it. But every so often one side or the other looks so much more appealing...and right now the Waldorf side of me is winning. :D Maybe it is the summer weather that finally arrived here this last week? :tongue_smilie: I'm just not ready to head back into anything resembling bookwork yet!

 

And I have spent way too much time on the boards this morning. I really do have lots of baking and cleaning to do and blueberry-fetching to do. Which is probably why I'm on the computer in the first place!

Edited August 21, 2011 by FairProspects

[Ellie]

It would not have occurred to me to buy a box of books for my preschoolers or to schedule their days to emulate a preschool. I usually don't say anything when people ask those kinds of questions because they've already made up their minds and I don't want to cause them grief.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I think I (pretty famously) advocate for learning about mathematics by (in part) playing with blocks and rods. A great deal of good comes from capitalizing on a child's natural propensity to play.

 

Play is awesome, but play (alone) is not optimal. Between extremes of pushing developmentally inappropriate workbooks on children, and doing nothing "academic", there is a Third Way that includes play while fostering academic learning.

 

The Third Way is a much better choice then either of the alternatives.

 

Bill

 

Yes, and I honestly think we get mired down in stereotypes and idealism with these discussions. If 100% play is on one side of the spectrum and 8 hours of formal academics is on the other, very few of us are there. Some of us lean more toward one end than the other but most are somewhere in the middle.

 

Despite being play-oriented, my kids learned to read, do basic math, a great deal of science, a reasonable amount of history, had art adventures, learned to love music, and just generally did their job as absorbent little sponges. I had to keep providing the water. They learned to count in the process of going about their daily lives. I would say 50 more swings and then count to 50. They would dole out silverware and dishes to set the table. They were read to daily and, at some point, each of them asked to learn to read and I taught them. It's just not a situation where I'm going to say, "OK, little one, it's time for math." The learning was organic, not scheduled. As I said before, I think there is nothing wrong with using a program. However, just because someone isn't doesn't mean they are not "capitalizing on a child's natural propensity to play." To be clear, I don't think you're saying that. What I am saying is that if you hear play-based, you can't necessarily assume a lack of capitalization. :D

Edited August 21, 2011 by Alte Veste Academy

[ThreeBlessings]

 

On the other hand, forcing a disinterested, active young child to do seatwork (whether 30 minutes, 2 hours, 8 hours...) when they are not developmentally ready is something else entirely. If your child is eagerly responding to early attempts at formal learning, fine. My fear is that once a parent has invested time and money into a program, they are going to keep on keeping on even if the child might not be ready. Haven't most of us seen those threads before? "How do I get ds4 to sit still for his _______ lesson?!?!?!" :confused: You don't. Put it away for now. But you spent time and money and had dreams and aspirations and that is not what you want to hear.

 

In my opinion I think it would be perfectly fine for you to tactfully share your opinions when you see threads like this. Perhaps it is an inexperienced mother, or a parent feeling pushed by themselves or others to have their child 'perform' and they would benefit from you sharing your opinion. Not necessarily, but I would see no harm in sharing your opinion if you wanted to.

[Food4Thought]

We don't do any formal schooling until first grade. Kindergarten is not required and the kids know that they can opt in or out daily. They have all learned to read at their own pace and I'm an oddball in that I don't do reading lessons on any kind of schedule. When they express interest, I teach a bit. If they want to back off, we back off. They ebb and flow and we've had incredible success respecting their natural cycles of learning in this way.

 

I select toys that are brain food and they spend the vast majority of their day playing. When they begin formally begin school in first grade, it's for about 2 hours a day. My oldest will probably be up to 3 hours a day this year.

 

:iagree: This sums up my schooling philosophy as well. My 2nd grader is doing less than 2 hours of seat work a day (although I thought it was closer to 4 when I was scheduling it - he's just gotten better at focusing on his work these days).

 

Play is awesome, but play (alone) is not optimal.

 

Would you define your interpretation of play? What types of play are acceptable and which types are not? Right now, I disagree with this statement, but it may be that your definition of play is not as broad as mine. I think play can stand alone in the early years.

[MAMommy]

Yes, and I honestly think we get mired down in stereotypes and idealism with these discussions. If 100% play is on one side of the spectrum and 8 hours of formal academics is on the other, very few of us are there. Some of us lean more toward one end than the other but most are somewhere in the middle.

 

Despite being play-oriented, my kids learned to read, do basic math, a great deal of science, a reasonable amount of history, had art adventures, learned to love music, and just generally did their job as absorbent little sponges. I had to keep providing the water. They learned to count in the process of going about their daily lives. I would say 50 more swings and then count to 50. They would dole out silverware and dishes to set the table. They were read to daily and, at some point, each of them asked to learn to read and I taught them. It's just not a situation where I'm going to say, "OK, little one, it's time for math." The learning was organic, not scheduled. As I said before, I think there is nothing wrong with using a program. However, just because someone isn't doesn't mean they are not "capitalizing on a child's natural propensity to play." To be clear, I don't think you're saying that. What I am saying is that if you hear play-based, you can't necessarily assume a lack of capitalization. :D

 

This is exactly how it works in our home, except I never had to teach my children to read. They picked it up all on their own.

[sbgrace]

I honestly can't remember the research links I found that solidified my instincts on this. I think it was the successful philosophy of delayed academics used in Finland along with the Moore's stuff perhaps. I also remember reading a study of early academic preschools and outcomes...the only groups that benefited long term were those children who came from, well, neglectful or otherwise deprived backgrounds if I recall. If you really need support I can try to look up some studies.

 

In short, I don't think a typical parent who does some academic stuff with a younger child is doing any harm. Most parents would back off of a resistant child and make it pleasant. I think it's fine. It can be fun time for parent and child together and that's a positive in fact. I just don't think it's necessary, provides long term academic benefit for the average child, or is the best use of time. That's all my opinion of course.

 

I can tell you that my kids did nothing academic before age 5.5 when I started HWOT stuff because I was concerned about what others would think in library programs when my boys were so far behind in writing because most of the kids in our community do academic preschool starting at 3. Other than that we didn't start academic things until age six. My boys are entering 2nd grade and I'm glad I delayed.

 

We spent our time playing, reading books together, exploring, and living. They did learn lots of things of course following their own interests.

Edited August 22, 2011 by sbgrace

[NanceXToo]

I think play can definitely stand alone in the earliest years. But maybe, like someone else said, it depends on your definition of play. Mine's pretty broad.

 

My almost 6 y/o had playbased preschool this past year. It included:

 

Lots of board games

Lots of read alouds

Computer games/video games

educational TV shows

puzzles, mazes

Lots of varied arts and crafts materials

Building toys (Lincoln logs, legos, blocks)

Manipulatives (pattern blocks, geoboards)

Lots of conversational learning games and topics

Helping to do things around the house, including baking etc

Nature walks and collecting things

Extra curricular activities which included teeball, bowling, swim lessons, a couple of Montessori camps, etc.

A bin full of dress up clothes, musical instruments and various toys

Lots of outings and "field trips"

Outside play, imaginative play etc.

Making various homemade "books" (a backyard nature book, an "about me" book, an "about my family book," a "hornbook," and so on).

 

He has really learned a lot. We haven't focused on teaching to read yet but do "letters" by making ABC books for fun, games, conversation, songs etc. We haven't focused on formal math but math skills are included in some of our board games, computer games and conversational games and he's picked up a lot that way.

 

I guess I don't get why that isn't "enough" for preschool and/or Kindergarten. I definitely think it is.

 

Nobody started teaching me how to read until I was in first grade and I am a very good avid reader and always have been. Not learning to read at age 4 or 5 and not even starting until I was about 6 1/2 worked just fine for me. And I see no reason why it couldn't wait until 7 or 8 if a child wasn't ready/interested by 5 or 6.

[Spy Car]

I honestly can't remember the research links I found that solidified my instincts on this. I think it was the successful philosophy of delayed academics used in Finland along with the Moore's stuff perhaps.

 

The case of Finland is misrepresented by advocates of delayed academics. While school is not "compulsory" until 7 almost all children are in kindergarten at 6 and before that most are in very well-funded day-care schools.

 

They certainly bring creative play and learning into a child's early pre-school experience (something I strongly agree with) but Finland is anything but a country with a delayed schooling environment.

 

Bill

[sbgrace]

The case of Finland is misrepresented by advocates of delayed academics. While school is not "compulsory" until 7 almost all children are in kindergarten at 6 and before that most are in very well-funded day-care schools.

 

They certainly bring creative play and learning into a child's early pre-school experience (something I strongly agree with) but Finland is anything but a country with a delayed schooling environment.

 

Bill

Actually, they are not doing academics in those day-care schools or kindergartens. They are doing play, a lot of outdoor play especially, and lifestyle things like setting the table. They are actually intentionally not learning letters, reading, or doing math work prior to that age 7 (or 8) as I recall. It has been a long time so I may be off in detail recollection (my boys are in 2nd grade and I researched all this pre-K to K and haven't looked since) but it's not what we do in preschool and K over-all in most US systems. If it were I would have put my kids in preschool. I do believe their system absolutely supports delayed academics. And, again, I don't think teaching your child academic stuff in preschool hurts the average child in any way and, in fact, I'm sure it's a positive experience.

 

I read some really interesting things and watched a documentary and it intrigued me. I think we would be better off over-all if we followed the same system here though not so compulsory I'd hope. That would put all kids who need it in an engaging family type environment (they keep the same peers and teacher all those years) and wait until most or all were ready before academic stuff was presented. I like it and, as a former teacher, I think it would be better than the broken system we have now by a lot.

 

There are some other programs in place in the US (Vygotskian Approach based) that take a somewhat similar track in terms of a class or group system but with early play based experiences being better for the brain and later academic outcomes. They have more structure in their system--it's not free play in this case. The success of those pre-K and K programs with all kids and at risk kids particularly really intrigue me. I couldn't replicate them at home--you need a group--and if it were available here I would have certainly enrolled my kids because I think it would have really benefited my special needs son. What is available here pre-K is your standard academic letters, numbers, and etc.

Edited August 22, 2011 by sbgrace

[nov05mama]

I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive. It sounds like people are making assumptions that kids using curriculum prior to K are doing school for several hours a day? :confused:

 

I have "curriculum" for my 4 year old. You know how much school he does? MAYBE 10 minutes a day, if that. Sometimes we don't "do school" for a week or two or three... I "do school" on a "when he asks to" basis. In K, I'll start requiring phonics, math, and handwriting (phonics and handwriting will likely be combined, since he has the motor skills to do so). That should take us roughly 30 minutes a day. He sleeps for 11-12 hours a day, so that leaves 11.5-12.5 hours of play time. And let me tell you, he is very imaginative in his play!

 

Doing school, even formal school, doesn't necessarily mean no play time!

 

Anyway, just worry about what you're doing and don't look down upon those who are doing it differently, and don't feel guilty for what you're doing either. Both routes are fine. Now if the parent is trying to push phonics and the child is resisting and crying and hating "school", it's definitely too much too soon. But keeping it short, light, and fun - I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

:iagree: I think you will ALWAYS get answers all across the board with this kind of question. We have done structured lessons early on and we play all.day.long. even when we are learning. He's learned what he has wanted to learn...I haven't forced any of it on him...I have made it available to him. We do lessons in the afternoon too...always have...he plays all morning, and after lunch, we start lessons and then he goes right back to playing (well, usually we head out the door to play outside).

 

Along the same lines, I am sure there are people (not nec. anyone here, just speaking figuratively) who would happily tell me that I shouldn't be doing nearly 2nd grade math with my not-quite 6 year old. He wants to learn multiplication (already knows some basic)...I am not gonna sit back and just say "nope, you are supposed to play" ;) but at the same time, I am not going to force-feed it down his throat either. I will work at his pace and have learning opportunities available (be the worksheets or hands-on activities or whatever).

 

It's about finding a balance in your own home and finding what works for YOUR family. That answer will be different with every single person on this board.

[Spy Car]

True. But they are not doing academics in those day-care schools or kindergartens. They are doing play, a lot of outdoor play especially, and living things like setting the table. They are actually intentionally not learning letters, reading, or doing math work prior to that age 7 (or 8) as I recall. It's not what we do in preschool and K over-all in most US systems. If it were I would have put my kids in preschool. I do believe their system absolutely supports delayed academics.

 

I read some really interesting things and watched a documentary and it intrigued me. I think we would be better off over-all if we followed the same system here though not so compulsory I'd hope. That would put all kids who need it in an engaging family type environment (they keep the same peers and teacher all those years) and wait until most or all were ready before academic stuff was presented. I like it and, as a former teacher, I think it would be better than the broken system we have now by a lot.

 

We had our son attend a cooperative play-based "developmental" nursery school. There were no "academics" beyond hearing a daily story or maybe learning about the names of colors as they painted. That sort of thing.

 

I support "play" as a critical component of child development. I also think there are playful means to develop a child's intellectual and academic gifts at this age that are full compatible (and not antagonistic) with a rich play-filled childhood.

 

A nursery school aged child can learn a great deal about mathematics by playing with rods (ask me how I know). And I'm unconvinced that a child who joyfully learns to read at 4 or 5 isn't going to be better off than one intentionally delayed until 7 or 8 or 9.

 

There are many ways to stimulate young minds. That I agree with 100%. I dislike the idea of just throwing workbooks at young children as much as the next guy. But there are developmentally appropriate ways to teach young children with fun and playful means.

 

Bill

[sbgrace]

We had our son attend a cooperative play-based "developmental" nursery school. There were no "academics" beyond hearing a daily story or maybe learning about the names of colors as they painted. That sort of thing.

 

I support "play" as a critical component of child development. I also think there are playful means to develop a child's intellectual and academic gifts at this age that are full compatible (and not antagonistic) with a rich play-filled childhood.

 

A nursery school aged child can learn a great deal about mathematics by playing with rods (ask me how I know). And I'm unconvinced that a child who joyfully learns to read at 4 or 5 isn't going to be better off than one intentionally delayed until 7 or 8 or 9.

 

There are many ways to stimulate young minds. That I agree with 100%. I dislike the idea of just throwing workbooks at young children as much as the next guy. But there are developmentally appropriate ways to teach young children with fun and playful means.

 

Bill

 

Bill, you may have had a wonderful preschool and K option that isn't available in most areas. If we had a play based experiential preschool option here I think it would have benefited at least one of mine and I would have enrolled too.

 

I don't think statistics would support that teaching children (over-all) to read at 4 or 5 results in better outcomes than teaching at 6 or 7 (over-all). Now the child who has a proficiency that lends him to interest and especially self teaching for reading at 4 or 5 will be ahead but they would anyway imo. My sister taught herself to read before K. She was ahead all her schooling. But early reading was a symptom and not a cause of that in my opinion. Similarly, her son was multiplying at four with absolutely no instruction (c-rods or otherwise). He's just wired for math. I expect he'll be ahead all his life in that area too if the schools don't mess him up. Essentially, we're not all equal intellectually or in gifts. So early readers being ahead doesn't mean early reading instruction benefits those who wouldn't otherwise read early in the mid-long term (say by 3rd or 4th grade). My boys were taught to read at about 6.5 and they are far ahead of peers (on average) who were taught at 5. I suspect it will all average out by 3rd grade or so though except perhaps for one who has a proficiency/gift in that area it seems.

 

I don't think the OP was talking about waiting until 7-9 to teach anyway but if she were I don't think it would harm her kids. Similarly, I don't think the parent who does c rod play with a four year old or I See Sam reading with that same 4 year old is doing harm.

 

As a former teacher my issue with early academics for all is that if a child isn't ready to learn to read at 6 he (it's likely a he...) will in my opinion and experience be possibly harmed by that early instruction. Those kids end up feeling like they can't do school or are dumb or give up and are lost academically in inordinate numbers. It's worse now than it used to be because testing is pushing those academic things ever younger.

 

A parent isn't going to force an unready 5 year old to read. This is more of a school/system wide problem I'm talking about and not a homeschool one.

 

Again, I am not talking about what you or any other parent does with his or her 5 year old.

Edited August 22, 2011 by sbgrace

[8filltheheart]

We had our son attend a cooperative play-based "developmental" nursery school. There were no "academics" beyond hearing a daily story or maybe learning about the names of colors as they painted. That sort of thing.

 

I support "play" as a critical component of child development. I also think there are playful means to develop a child's intellectual and academic gifts at this age that are full compatible (and not antagonistic) with a rich play-filled childhood.

 

A nursery school aged child can learn a great deal about mathematics by playing with rods (ask me how I know). And I'm unconvinced that a child who joyfully learns to read at 4 or 5 isn't going to be better off than one intentionally delayed until 7 or 8 or 9.

 

There are many ways to stimulate young minds. That I agree with 100%. I dislike the idea of just throwing workbooks at young children as much as the next guy. But there are developmentally appropriate ways to teach young children with fun and playful means.

 

Bill

 

There is also a very distinct advantage in children having to entertain themselves by using their imagination. We live in an age and society that dwells in "stimulating" children by scheduling their every minute w/some "wonderful" activity.

 

While you remain unconvinced that teaching a child to read at 4 or 5 cannot help but lead to a better outcome than one reading at a later age, that does not make your view valid. ;) Not all kids can learn to read at 4 or 5. It isn't a matter of teaching. It is a matter of brain development. Certain stages of brain development (which are simply maturation processes) are required in order to be able to decode to read. (decoding being a different process than sight reading)

 

Was someone advocating the Moore's philosophy? I ask b/c I didn't see the suggestion of waiting until 7, 8, or 9. I thought the OP was asking about pre-school and academic oriented primary grades. I have never practiced the Moore's philosophy, so I have no idea if it is accurate or not. I have been happy with the minimum that we do and the progress my kids make. I can say that not teaching my kids the alphabet or to recognize their numbers at age 4 has not had any negative outcome. I could careless if it might have been "better." Better according to what standard and whose definition? By academic standards that matter......what they are actually doing at age levels that have significance.......they have all been either completely on par (and early academics wouldn't have changed an avg student into a gifted one) or advanced (and I think that I can argue that the hrs that they spent playing were far more valuable to their development long term than my doing anything with them.)

 

I think this is a case where parental philosophy is going to come into play. We are all blessed w/ our own children and this is one of those areas where it really isn't going to matter in the long run. Unless you have really gifted kids, it really will end up being a wash in the long run. (my earliest reader is the weakest high school student I have had. My latest reader.....didn't read on grade level until 4th grade.....is my absolute strongest student and blows even his oldest brother's experience to bits (and he just graduated with his chemE degree w/a 3.65 GPA)

Edited August 22, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart