Hothousing...continued....

[Iucounu]

Was I comparing them? I'm not making a judgment call. Please refer to my prior statements.

 

Yes, I think you were. In addition I think you are making a judgment call; you're suggesting that it's improper to even discuss hothousing, since it would lead to a "slippery slope". I am still finding it hard to understand this. People exert judgment in a thousand ways every day. There's a point at which behavior directed at children can become abusive. That's a big part of the topic of discussion in this thread, and that's not wrong even though it may make some people uncomfortable to discuss it. Some questions on the table include, what do people mean by using the term "hothousing"? What is hothousing? What is harmful pushing? These are useful questions to ponder, for reasons including that we may be accused of hothousing, and we don't want to engage in harmful pushing of our children. In considering these questions, we will naturally refer to examples. It's natural.

[LucyStoner]

I've also been the victim of class warfare (irl) where I've been the one ridiculed by those who play the class card.

 

I am sorry that you have been ridiculed for your class status (whatever that is, as I do not know) but ridicule is not an act of war.

Edited September 26, 2011 by kijipt

[ElizaG]

I hope you don't mind my coming at this from another angle... one that's maybe not quite so personal and sensitive for present-day parents.

 

For the past couple of years, I've been spending much of my spare time (i.e., time when I should be sleeping or doing housework ;)) reading about the history and philosophy of education. In the process, I've come across many examples of parental behaviors that might be described as "hothousing." Some of these are centuries old. A few weeks ago, in a different thread, I gave a link to one source of anecdotes. Terman's Genetic Studies of Genius also gives brief accounts of many historical figures whose parents tutored them in Latin and Greek, starting as early as age 3. In addition to these, we have two other interesting books -- Cradles of Eminence and 300 Eminent Personalities -- that describe the childhoods of famous people who lived closer to our own time. The people in the latter two books weren't all known for their intellectual ability, and most of them weren't given intensive academics in early childhood, but many were raised in unusual ways according to their parents' pet theories.

 

Anyway, just wondering if anyone has read any of the above case studies, and if so, what you thought about them. Would you consider some of these parents to be "hothousers?" If so, which ones?

[Donna]

Interesting. To me,what you have described is a cultural difference in parenting.

 

How do your Asian friends describe it?

Do you see a difference depending on generation after the initial immigration?

 

Just answering your question because I think the topic is just spinning at this point.

 

The Asian friend in my anecdote on violin and his wife, who was forced to excel in golf to the point where she hadn't picked up a club after college until her dd's were old enough to ask to learn to play, have said they do not enjoy the activities they excel at. They describe their childhoods in very negative ways and admit to quitting their activity at least once in their lives. They claim to have found in each other life partners because they both dealt with similar situations in their childhoods. They do not push their kids to do anything. They follow and support their children's own interests.

 

How their parents describe the same experiences may be an entirely different story.

 

Just wanted to add that the views I expressed earlier in the thread were my own views on what constitutes hothousing and the things I want to avoid in the way I bring up my own children. When you have children who excel at something you can see where, as a parent, you might be tempted to "push" to see what the child is fully capable of...what more could they do if I did ____. You struggle with knowing when it is pushing, when it is supporting their choices/needs, and how much you are able to do to support them without it being detrimental to them or rest of the family.

 

It is a struggle as a parent to decide when "pushing" (in the loosest sense of the word) is good...is your normally great practicer just having a bad day and need a little encouragement to get going? Or should you let them have the day off because they're having a bad day? Is it a behavior issue that needs to be addressed or do they need a mental health day?

 

There are little moments where we make choices in child rearing all the time and of course, we make judgements...not judging the parents as good or bad but putting their choices on that continuum of whether we think the choices themselves were good or bad... more a "would I do it that way or not" judgement. I think it is good to discuss where some parents think the line should be drawn and to know what limits you put on yourself or how you go about making similar choices.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Donna

[MBM]

I think it's too easy to make judgements based on incomplete information, and that is where the danger of labeling someone as being a "hothouser" lies.

 

The term also connotes abuse and a negative means of educating. Some examples are fairly obvious cases of abuse but others are not. To a certain extent, deciding whether someone hothouses is a matter of relativity.

 

Now the part I find most interesting. The idea of hothousing for sake of status is probably true in some cases, but I'd say that in other cases it's done out of fear. Motives can vary.

 

I'd also say that we all tend to give clues to our opinions about status in the information we choose to include (or exclude) in posts, the avatars and taglines we use, and even the names we select for ourselves. So while you're pondering and remarking about someone else's intentions, keep in mind that we all use to some degree or another "bumper stickers" to communicate who we are to the world. That's human nature.

[Mandy in TN]

But I want to feel free to share my experiences and desires here w/o being accused of hothousing my kids. I want to read about what others are doing in art, music, sports, theater, academics, spelling bee, chess, gymnastics, violin, math olympiad, science olympiad, etc.

When I eventually have the time to read this whole thread, I may have a different response, but the gist of it is that I do not believe in child-led education for my son. It irks me to hear that if I in any way encourage my child academically I must be hothousing (in a derogatory way) my child. Basically, the attitude I often hear is that gifted children will heartily pursue education without parental encouragement and support. I have found this to be categorically untrue.

If my youngest were given the leeway to choose what he wanted to do, he would play MMO games all day- every waking minute. He likes interacting with people in this situation where he gets recognition for his achievements without any reference to his age. He can talk to anyone and not have to explain that he is only 8yo. Guess what, I don't give him that choice.

I am a strong believer in diligence. I believe in meeting a child where he has mastery and working forward from that point so that he is working where he is challenged to work quickly and accurately. I would never applaud my son making straight As, because he is being allowed to work far below where is capable. This scenario will be unlikely to produce diligence or perseverance.

Have there been times when I was confused with what to do next because he was moving so quickly- of course. Have we had periods where we moved more slowly than others- of course. Sometimes kids just get it and sometimes, no matter how much you look at something, they just need time. Either way, it is my job as his mother and his primary instructor to make certain that his school is not so easy that he can blast through it without learning how to study.

Anyway, please feel free to share your children's accomplishments. If I see the post, I will come over and clap for you!

Mandy

[Beth in SW WA]

I am a strong believer in diligence. I believe in meeting a child where he has mastery and working forward from that point so that he is working where he is challenged to work quickly and accurately. I would never applaud my son making straight As, because he is being allowed to work far below where is capable. This scenario will be unlikely to produce diligence or perseverance.

Have there been times when I was confused with what to do next because he was moving so quickly- of course. Have we had periods where we moved more slowly than others- of course. Sometimes kids just get it and sometimes, no matter how much you look at something, they just need time. Either way, it is my job as his mother and his primary instructor to make certain that his school is not so easy that he can blast through it without learning how to study.

Anyway, please feel free to share your children's accomplishments. If I see the post, I will come over and clap for you!

Mandy

 

:iagree:

 

I have found the fine line between challenge & exasperation -- for each of my dc. Keeping a finger on the pulse of everyone's academic progress is one of the true joys of homeschooling -- and parenting, for that matter (at least for me). We can be so intimately involved in their educational experience when they are in our home day after day. It is much different for my olders. They are accountable to themselves and their teachers now. It's a win-win.

 

How's your job at Kumon, Mandy? You surely have a unique perspective working with children from varying backgrounds and parental preferences.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Beth in SW WA
typo

[Beth in SW WA]

I hope you don't mind my coming at this from another angle... one that's maybe not quite so personal and sensitive for present-day parents.

 

For the past couple of years, I've been spending much of my spare time (i.e., time when I should be sleeping or doing housework ;)) reading about the history and philosophy of education. In the process, I've come across many examples of parental behaviors that might be described as "hothousing." Some of these are centuries old. A few weeks ago, in a different thread, I gave a link to one source of anecdotes. Terman's Genetic Studies of Genius also gives brief accounts of many historical figures whose parents tutored them in Latin and Greek, starting as early as age 3. In addition to these, we have two other interesting books -- Cradles of Eminence and 300 Eminent Personalities -- that describe the childhoods of famous people who lived closer to our own time. The people in the latter two books weren't all known for their intellectual ability, and most of them weren't given intensive academics in early childhood, but many were raised in unusual ways according to their parents' pet theories.

 

Anyway, just wondering if anyone has read any of the above case studies, and if so, what you thought about them. Would you consider some of these parents to be "hothousers?" If so, which ones?

 

I'll check this out, Eleanor. Looks wonderful. Thanks for chiming in. I doubt these parents were accused of pushing/hothousing (in the negative sense). Intellectualism had a more prominent role and was highly esteemed in yesteryear. I love the scene in John Adams where Abigail is drilling Latin forms with her youngers. :)

[ElizaG]

The term also connotes abuse and a negative means of educating.

I guess it does, at least to many people these days. But it's my understanding that the term "hothousing" has to do with creating an environment that would encourage a flower to bloom before its usual time. By definition, it's not natural, but many of the historical examples weren't abusive as one would normally understand the term. The parents or tutors were often aware that young children learn best through fun and games (this awareness goes back at least to Roman times, e.g. Quintilian), and they proceeded gently and affectionately, stopping when the child didn't seem interested. They were just very, very, persistent, and they controlled the environment such that the child didn't have a lot of outside distractions.

 

In past centuries, the disadvantage of this approach was thought to be in the precocity itself -- i.e., the fact that the parents were causing their child to develop intellectually before they'd reached the usual stage of maturity. It was widely believed that at at some time in the future, these people would snap under the nervous strain. (Cf. the arguments presented by the Bluedorns that early academics are a cause of "chorea.") Even naturally gifted children were thought to be at risk, and would be turfed outside for rough and tumble play. You can see this in Little Men, in reference to Demi.

Very fond of books, and full of lively fancies, born of a strong imagination and a spiritual nature, these traits made his parents anxious to balance them with useful knowledge and healthful society, lest they should make him one of those pale precocious children who amaze and delight a family sometimes, and fade away like hot-house flowers, because the young soul blooms too soon, and has not a hearty body to root it firmly in the wholesome soil of this world.

To a certain extent, deciding whether someone hothouses is a matter of relativity.

:iagree: To parents from a few generations ago, even having a set of alphabet letters or reading lots of picture books might be seen as "hothousing." Given the wide availability of educational books and toys in our time, it almost seems as if it would take a deliberate effort for people today not to hothouse to some extent.

[ElizaG]

A couple more from the 19th century, making reference to some young children as "hot-house plants":

 

Treatment of Chorea

 

How John and I Brought Up the Child

 

From my reading, parents in previous centuries sometimes deliberately chose to start their gifted children late at school, at age 9 or 10 instead of 6 or 7. In the mean time, they were given lots of free time and outdoor play in the country. Given the research about delayed cortical maturation, maybe these people were on to something.

 

(ETA: Not that I'd advocate trying to prevent gifted children from learning to read, or whatever -- just saying that, especially at younger ages, the formal school environment might not be the best fit.)

Edited September 26, 2011 by Eleanor

[Mandy in TN]

I have found the fine line between challenge & exasperation -- for each of my dc. Keeping a finger on the pulse of everyone's academic progress is one of the true joys of homeschooling -- and parenting, for that matter (at least for me). We can be so intimately involved in their educational experience when they are in our home day after day. It is much different for my olders. They are accountable to themselves and their teachers now. It's a win-win.

 

How's your job at Kumon, Mandy? You surely have a unique perspective working with children from varying backgrounds and parental preferences.

I enjoy working in the JK room at Kumon and have had only a few incidents of parents wanting to push their children. Those few parents I have had that are pushy I send to the center owner. It isn't my job to deal with pushy parents. :) She explains that she wants the child to continue moving forward successfully. (Sure, it makes her center look good in the short term if a child is at a higher level, but in the long run a child who is pushed to a higher level without having mastered the previous levels will struggle and not move forward later.)

 

In my experience most parents regardless of culture just want their children to be academically successful and to move forward as they are able. (FWIW, immigrants and first generation Americans do seem to put less emphasis on sports that Americans in general.) With Kumon they are providing them with the tools they need to be successful if they should move back to India or to another state. I mean let's face it TN's ACT scores are 49th. Only children in MS have worse ACT scores. So, for families who don't move are still providing a strong foundation.

 

I have had a few 3yos who were almost 4. I have only had one tiny 3yo who was still in pull-ups. In that case she had an older brother in the big room. She begged to sit with me. She sat with me for over a month just doing coloring pages before her parents let her have actually Kumon sheets. She was with me until she moved to California just before she started K. Her parents didn't care if she did Kumon every day and didn't care if she repeated the pages many, many times as long as she was happy. As a rule of thumb, we don't take children who are not potty trained and we do not take children who are unable to sit away from their parents.

 

The first 2 levels of 200 sheets each are just vocabulary building and require no writing. The first 100 sheets of the 3rd level is just writing letters. The kids just write the same letter 6 times on each sheet and make the sound of the letter (short vowels and hard c and g). The last 100 sheets of the 3rd level are just CVC words and they have a picture of the words at the top of the page. I really enjoy my little Kumon kids and in no way do I feel like the 10-15 minutes a day that it takes a 4yo to do JrKumon is abusive or hothousing. ;) I see Kumon building diligent, independent learners.

 

Mandy

[Beth in SW WA]

Thanks for sharing, Mandy. I wonder where WA ranks. Do you have a website?

[TCB]

:iagree:

 

Hothoused tomatoes are forced to grow under artificial light and heat. I have never heard this used as a positive term when applied to kids

 

 

:iagree:

[jenbrdsly]

I enjoy working in the JK room at Kumon and have had only a few incidents of parents wanting to push their children. Those few parents I have had that are pushy I send to the center owner. It isn't my job to deal with pushy parents. :) She explains that she wants the child to continue moving forward successfully. (Sure, it makes her center look good in the short term if a child is at a higher level, but in the long run a child who is pushed to a higher level without having mastered the previous levels will struggle and not move forward later.)

 

In my experience most parents regardless of culture just want their children to be academically successful and to move forward as they are able. (FWIW, immigrants and first generation Americans do seem to put less emphasis on sports that Americans in general.) With Kumon they are providing them with the tools they need to be successful if they should move back to India or to another state. I mean let's face it TN's ACT scores are 49th. Only children in MS have worse ACT scores. So, for families who don't move are still providing a strong foundation.

 

I have had a few 3yos who were almost 4. I have only had one tiny 3yo who was still in pull-ups. In that case she had an older brother in the big room. She begged to sit with me. She sat with me for over a month just doing coloring pages before her parents let her have actually Kumon sheets. She was with me until she moved to California just before she started K. Her parents didn't care if she did Kumon every day and didn't care if she repeated the pages many, many times as long as she was happy. As a rule of thumb, we don't take children who are not potty trained and we do not take children who are unable to sit away from their parents.

 

The first 2 levels of 200 sheets each are just vocabulary building and require no writing. The first 100 sheets of the 3rd level is just writing letters. The kids just write the same letter 6 times on each sheet and make the sound of the letter (short vowels and hard c and g). The last 100 sheets of the 3rd level are just CVC words and they have a picture of the words at the top of the page. I really enjoy my little Kumon kids and in no way do I feel like the 10-15 minutes a day that it takes a 4yo to do JrKumon is abusive or hothousing. ;) I see Kumon building diligent, independent learners.

 

Mandy

 

Thank you for this description, which I found to be very informative. It is interesting to compare the Kumon approach to SWB and JW's book The Well Trained Mind. In Chapter 4 of the WTM the authors talk about doing lots of reading and language-rich activities in early childhood, but not beginning formal homeschooling until first grade.

 

My own personal philosophy is that American parents in general should do as many language-rich and hands-on activities as possible with young children and teach to their appropriate level, but in a fun way that does not grind down the child's spirit. If kids don't watch so much TV, there is plenty of time for learning games. I don't view this as hothousing; I view it as spending quality time with your child in a way that is often educational.

 

Myself personally, I am not very big on worksheets because my educational philosophy leans towards Constructivism. But there is so little teaching advice out there for parents to follow besides "read to your child" that I can understand why people might flock to a program like Kumon that gave them a structured way to help encourage learning at a young age.

 

I think that the bigger problem in America today is not with parents hothousing their children, but with parents who don't do anything to support early learning at all. Partly I think this is due to a lack of information and resources available to parents on where to start. The only message we receive is "read to your kid" and "watch Sesame Street". (I'll save my rant about Sesame Street for another time.)

 

That being said, when hothousing does exist it is really horrible to witness, as evidenced by the story I shared earlier about my college roommate who was so nit-picked by her parents that she had a nervous breakdown and was institutionalized our freshman year.

Edited September 26, 2011 by jenbrdsly

[justamouse]

I see it as a highly personal decision that could be wonderful--or could backfire. Each child is so different (even in giftings) that what would cause one to excel would be the very thing that destroys another child's love of learning and sends them into anxiety attacks.

[ElizaG]

I do think the term is relative, and this is a case in point. The page that jenbrdsly linked to -- which is from a blog, not TWTM -- mentions a variety of educational activities for early childhood. Many of these activities would have been considered "hothousing" by the the 19th century critics I mentioned.

 

The concern back then wasn't about worksheets vs. hands-on, or fun vs. drudgery, or constructivism vs. traditional methods, or what have you. It was simply about whether or not there was a danger in overstimulating the child's mind by encouraging intellectual work at a very early age. This isn't something that's talked about much these days among classical homeschoolers, but it's still a concern for many "better late than early," unschooling, and Waldorfish families.

 

Given that so many educators and doctors of the past seemed to see serious problems inherent to early education -- and that children themselves haven't changed between then and now -- I think it's worth discussing. Is there a limit to the level and rate of intellectual stimulation that's developmentally appropriate for young children? (ETA: Or, for that matter, for older but still not-yet-mature students?) If so, how do we know what it is? (Again, I'm talking about things parents do to encourage or facilitate learning, as opposed to a child teaching himself without any assistance.)

 

By framing the discussion in a way that sidesteps this whole question, I'm not sure we're going to reach a deeper understanding of the issue. It just becomes subjective, as in: "those parents who do less than we do are neglectful; those parents who do more than we do are hothousing."

Edited September 26, 2011 by Eleanor

[SKL]

I was thinking about this . . . many special needs kids are given a lot more intensive tutoring / therapy than accelerated kids. Nobody considers it to be "hothousing" when it involves a child who needs the help to get closer to educational standards. Yet if we're merely trying to get our kids to do their own personal best, which may happen to be above educational standards, we open ourselves to judgment. Why? If it's wrong to "push" bright kids, why isn't it even more wrong to "push" kids with learning difficulties?

[ElizaG]

I was thinking about this . . . many special needs kids are given a lot more intensive tutoring / therapy than accelerated kids. Nobody considers it to be "hothousing" when it involves a child who needs the help to get closer to educational standards. Yet if we're merely trying to get our kids to do their own personal best, which may happen to be above educational standards, we open ourselves to judgment. Why? If it's wrong to "push" bright kids, why isn't it even more wrong to "push" kids with learning difficulties?

I think it depends on the situation. Some children with special needs tend to be underreactive, and don't start to make progress until they get extra stimulation. Others need a lot of extra repetition to grasp even basic concepts. In these cases, I think intensive tutoring and therapy can make a lot of sense. Yes, it's "artificial" and could end up having some undesirable side effects, but you can say the same thing about surgery and drugs for medical conditions.

 

(I don't think any of us would advocate giving medications to typical or gifted/talented children just to optimize and fine tune them.)

[jenbrdsly]

I was thinking about this . . . many special needs kids are given a lot more intensive tutoring / therapy than accelerated kids. Nobody considers it to be "hothousing" when it involves a child who needs the help to get closer to educational standards. Yet if we're merely trying to get our kids to do their own personal best, which may happen to be above educational standards, we open ourselves to judgment. Why? If it's wrong to "push" bright kids, why isn't it even more wrong to "push" kids with learning difficulties?

 

This is a really interesting point, and brings to mind Maria Montessori. She did her original work with special needs children and brought them up to grade level (or whatever was considered standard level in 19th century Italy). That led her to wonder what why so called "normal" children weren't performing any higher. So she talked her way into setting up an experimental classroom in the slums, which was the only group of parents who would give her, Italy's first female doctor, access to their children. Her results were of course, wonderful and the rest is history.

[wapiti]

I was thinking about this . . . many special needs kids are given a lot more intensive tutoring / therapy than accelerated kids. Nobody considers it to be "hothousing" when it involves a child who needs the help to get closer to educational standards. Yet if we're merely trying to get our kids to do their own personal best, which may happen to be above educational standards, we open ourselves to judgment. Why? If it's wrong to "push" bright kids, why isn't it even more wrong to "push" kids with learning difficulties?

 

This is an interesting point.

 

Today there is a thread on the high school board about trying to motivate a bright student who was obviously underchallenged in his younger years. It is just this sort of underachievement that motivates me to do something that might look like "pushing." However, what I'm after is brain-stretching rather than hothousing.

 

Ironically, the few times a teacher thought I was hothousing, I wasn't doing anything, LOL (slacker that I am).

[wapiti]

This is a really interesting point, and brings to mind Maria Montessori. She did her original work with special needs children and brought them up to grade level (or whatever was considered standard level in 19th century Italy). That led her to wonder what why so called "normal" children weren't performing any higher. So she talked her way into setting up an experimental classroom in the slums, which was the only group of parents who would give her, Italy's first female doctor, access to their children. Her results were of course, wonderful and the rest is history.

 

This too is an interesting point, though most followers of Montessori would argue strongly that they are not pushing, they are just using a different approach. Indeed, I wish they'd push a little more than they do (four of my kids are currently attending a Montessori school, and the flexible pace is one of the primary reasons). One of the reasons I pulled dd out in 4th is that there comes a time when some kids need a little more pushing, and not all teachers are equally talented at delivering the appropriately-timed nudges on above-grade-level material.

[ElizaG]

This is a really interesting point, and brings to mind Maria Montessori. She did her original work with special needs children and brought them up to grade level (or whatever was considered standard level in 19th century Italy). That led her to wonder what why so called "normal" children weren't performing any higher. So she talked her way into setting up an experimental classroom in the slums, which was the only group of parents who would give her, Italy's first female doctor, access to their children. Her results were of course, wonderful and the rest is history.

I think the difference with Montessori is that when she worked with children with special needs, she herself chose the materials and worked one-on-one with each child, giving them a lot of guidance. So it was what we'd consider a "therapy" type of arrangement.

 

When she worked with typical children, she put the materials out and the children themselves chose which ones to work with. Anything that they didn't gravitate to on their own, or that seemed to disrupt the flow of the environment, was discarded. She refined the classroom set-up over many years, in response to her careful observations, and ended up having a balance of sensory, motor, practical, musical, and social activities. The children did end up learning some academics that were unheard of for preschoolers, but this was in the context of their overall normalization. The key to this was that the child could choose the specific work that best suited his overall development at that stage -- whether it was sweeping the floor, or learning about the decimal system.

 

From everything I've read of her writings, she was objective and scientific in following the children, and really came at this without an agenda other than the satisfaction of her own curiosity. She didn't set out with a goal of teaching math and reading, nor of making the children "higher performing" in an academic sense. Some parents do choose Montessori schools for that reason, but it wasn't her intent. If it had been, I doubt she would have had anywhere near the same success. :)

 

ETA: In response to Wapiti -- yes, we had this problem too, and it's one reason we're not doing "textbook Montessori" (home or school-based) any more. The materials and presentation sequence are optimized for typically developing children, so the ones with significantly asynchronous development are very likely to need extra guidance and adaptations. It's quite a lot to take on, and many teachers don't seem up to the task.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Eleanor