Re: Subject: Early Childhood Learning
Peggy
From: Helen Hegener <HEM-Editor@...>
minutes per day at 16 months)? Here we have our children, who even as the
youngest of infants, are trying to communicate with us, who very visibly show
their hope that we are listening to them. What happens when we interject our
own agenda into our conversations with them? What happens to the process when
the product becomes paramount?
Bev Bos wrote a book in 1983 in direct response to this sort of "teach 'em
early and make geniuses out of 'em", rhetoric that was so popular then in the
media. In her book, _Before The Basics_ she writes:
"Nowhere is our impatience for the end product more apparent, and probably
more damaging, than it is in our pushing our children too early into formal
learning experiences--particularly reading. We should know better. A
generation of research and observation has produced solid evidence that shows
the many complex developmental stages children must go through before they
will be physically ready to master and retain the skills that literacy
demands....The current emphasis on early reading--at ages three and four--is
producing some terrible consequences for many children. If some children are
being pushed before they are ready and thus invited into early failure, other
children who may show no immediate problems with early mastery of reading
skills are also being damaged, I believe, by being deprived of a sufficient
foundation and background in language on which to base later formal reading
experience. I don't believe we are damaging this second group less than the
first: it is as if we are taking early talent as a signal to stunt growth.
Earliest isn't best. Fastest isn't best. If what we want for our children is a
lifetime of excellence, in ability, in knowledge--we must be responsible
enough to wait and thorough enough to look at all sides of their development."
I think the doubts that Bev Bos expresses about an emphasis on reading too
early are valid ones. Children are so *different* from one another. One plan
fits all just doesn't seem reasonable to me. I think infants benefit from our
loving attention; from being held and nursed and kept close to us and the
other members of our families as they grow and develop in a naturally
stimulating environment. But phonics at two? Children who spontaneously
develop reading skills that early age don't seem to need phonics or anything
else. My personal feeling is that some children are genetically hardwired
with talents for various skills. As the mother of both a gifted early reader
and a late reader, I've had some experience with the continuum of children's
natural abilities myself. I think that maybe this guy Marsh's theories suffer
from an inadequate amount of pertinent data: one data point is just not enough
to base a theory of education upon. Yes, he had fun and what he calls success
experimenting on his one and only son. I just can't help but wonder what his
son lost in those years since Marsh seems to have been very pedagogical in his
approach... And, less altruistically, he hints at a cost for a program that he
will present to parents if they contact him.
Peggy
>I have some real concerns about the assumptions he makes, he says:
> "If you would look at my web page on
> this---www.educationbeginsatbirth.com---you will learn more about it
> and me at the bio section."
>
> I did take a look at Marsh's site, and it's interesting reading. I've
> always believed there was a direct correlation between early social
> and mental stimulation (not necessarily 'schoolwork' per se, but
> loving and supportive interaction between parent and child) and later
> learning abilities, and I've often wondered why there's still a
> strong perception that "learning" is something that should start
> happening around the age when children would normally go off to
> school. I know most homeschoolers know better, that children are
> learning from birth (and perhaps even before) but still, most of the
> articles we receive are directed toward a sort of "parallel school
> age" group.
>
> Marsh's no-nonsense approach to the topic of very early childhood
> learning makes me wonder why the whole subject hasn't received more
> discussion. Or perhaps it has and I missed it...
> The very best and most powerful brian stimulant is reading!Is this really true for all toddlers (he started teaching his son for 30/40
> I am not talking about reading to children or any kind of a reading
> readiness program. On the contrary, I believe in giving children the
> whole enchilada and teaching them how to read books to us!
> Accordingly, I strongly recommend that we begin to teach reading
> (with phonics) as soon as children begin to talk!
>
> I am saying that when preschoolers learn how to read. . .
>
> THEY BECOME EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT AND
> WONDERFUL READERS.
minutes per day at 16 months)? Here we have our children, who even as the
youngest of infants, are trying to communicate with us, who very visibly show
their hope that we are listening to them. What happens when we interject our
own agenda into our conversations with them? What happens to the process when
the product becomes paramount?
Bev Bos wrote a book in 1983 in direct response to this sort of "teach 'em
early and make geniuses out of 'em", rhetoric that was so popular then in the
media. In her book, _Before The Basics_ she writes:
"Nowhere is our impatience for the end product more apparent, and probably
more damaging, than it is in our pushing our children too early into formal
learning experiences--particularly reading. We should know better. A
generation of research and observation has produced solid evidence that shows
the many complex developmental stages children must go through before they
will be physically ready to master and retain the skills that literacy
demands....The current emphasis on early reading--at ages three and four--is
producing some terrible consequences for many children. If some children are
being pushed before they are ready and thus invited into early failure, other
children who may show no immediate problems with early mastery of reading
skills are also being damaged, I believe, by being deprived of a sufficient
foundation and background in language on which to base later formal reading
experience. I don't believe we are damaging this second group less than the
first: it is as if we are taking early talent as a signal to stunt growth.
Earliest isn't best. Fastest isn't best. If what we want for our children is a
lifetime of excellence, in ability, in knowledge--we must be responsible
enough to wait and thorough enough to look at all sides of their development."
I think the doubts that Bev Bos expresses about an emphasis on reading too
early are valid ones. Children are so *different* from one another. One plan
fits all just doesn't seem reasonable to me. I think infants benefit from our
loving attention; from being held and nursed and kept close to us and the
other members of our families as they grow and develop in a naturally
stimulating environment. But phonics at two? Children who spontaneously
develop reading skills that early age don't seem to need phonics or anything
else. My personal feeling is that some children are genetically hardwired
with talents for various skills. As the mother of both a gifted early reader
and a late reader, I've had some experience with the continuum of children's
natural abilities myself. I think that maybe this guy Marsh's theories suffer
from an inadequate amount of pertinent data: one data point is just not enough
to base a theory of education upon. Yes, he had fun and what he calls success
experimenting on his one and only son. I just can't help but wonder what his
son lost in those years since Marsh seems to have been very pedagogical in his
approach... And, less altruistically, he hints at a cost for a program that he
will present to parents if they contact him.
Peggy
Kelli Traaseth
I agree with Peggy, Joyce and Yol, and thank you Helen, for bringing this subject up for discussion. I suppose its been hashed out before and I hadn't seen it.
I really think that Marsh misses a huge point, a child's/baby's/toddler's brain does grow and will flourish with stimulation, but, who are we know where and how their individual brains will flourish? The whole lumping all children into one 'type' is so limited. It seems to me that his program would fit right in with alot of schoolish ideas. Kind-of, crank the kids out on a conveyor belt thing.
I always read to my babys/toddlers but it was more of a together time and nurturing time. Looking at colorful pictures, and enjoying each other. Who knows if they really benefited from the reading or if it was just being held. And I can't even imagine actually teaching a 16 month old how to read!?! My kids would have been soooo out of there. They had cupboards to explore, plants to look at, toys to play with....and so on.
I guess the problem with society, and many people on this list have said it, is that people do see what works for some people and then it is the quick fix. They think that this particular act, class, process will make their child successful. So often, patience and nurturing is totally forgotten or not even brought up as a viable option in parenting. Unfortunately, these are not strong suits in main stream society, it makes me sad.
I'll stop now,
Kelli
Peggy <peggy@...> wrote:
From: Helen Hegener <HEM-Editor@...>
minutes per day at 16 months)? Here we have our children, who even as the
youngest of infants, are trying to communicate with us, who very visibly show
their hope that we are listening to them. What happens when we interject our
own agenda into our conversations with them? What happens to the process when
the product becomes paramount?
Bev Bos wrote a book in 1983 in direct response to this sort of "teach 'em
early and make geniuses out of 'em", rhetoric that was so popular then in the
media. In her book, _Before The Basics_ she writes:
"Nowhere is our impatience for the end product more apparent, and probably
more damaging, than it is in our pushing our children too early into formal
learning experiences--particularly reading. We should know better. A
generation of research and observation has produced solid evidence that shows
the many complex developmental stages children must go through before they
will be physically ready to master and retain the skills that literacy
demands....The current emphasis on early reading--at ages three and four--is
producing some terrible consequences for many children. If some children are
being pushed before they are ready and thus invited into early failure, other
children who may show no immediate problems with early mastery of reading
skills are also being damaged, I believe, by being deprived of a sufficient
foundation and background in language on which to base later formal reading
experience. I don't believe we are damaging this second group less than the
first: it is as if we are taking early talent as a signal to stunt growth.
Earliest isn't best. Fastest isn't best. If what we want for our children is a
lifetime of excellence, in ability, in knowledge--we must be responsible
enough to wait and thorough enough to look at all sides of their development."
I think the doubts that Bev Bos expresses about an emphasis on reading too
early are valid ones. Children are so *different* from one another. One plan
fits all just doesn't seem reasonable to me. I think infants benefit from our
loving attention; from being held and nursed and kept close to us and the
other members of our families as they grow and develop in a naturally
stimulating environment. But phonics at two? Children who spontaneously
develop reading skills that early age don't seem to need phonics or anything
else. My personal feeling is that some children are genetically hardwired
with talents for various skills. As the mother of both a gifted early reader
and a late reader, I've had some experience with the continuum of children's
natural abilities myself. I think that maybe this guy Marsh's theories suffer
from an inadequate amount of pertinent data: one data point is just not enough
to base a theory of education upon. Yes, he had fun and what he calls success
experimenting on his one and only son. I just can't help but wonder what his
son lost in those years since Marsh seems to have been very pedagogical in his
approach... And, less altruistically, he hints at a cost for a program that he
will present to parents if they contact him.
Peggy
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I really think that Marsh misses a huge point, a child's/baby's/toddler's brain does grow and will flourish with stimulation, but, who are we know where and how their individual brains will flourish? The whole lumping all children into one 'type' is so limited. It seems to me that his program would fit right in with alot of schoolish ideas. Kind-of, crank the kids out on a conveyor belt thing.
I always read to my babys/toddlers but it was more of a together time and nurturing time. Looking at colorful pictures, and enjoying each other. Who knows if they really benefited from the reading or if it was just being held. And I can't even imagine actually teaching a 16 month old how to read!?! My kids would have been soooo out of there. They had cupboards to explore, plants to look at, toys to play with....and so on.
I guess the problem with society, and many people on this list have said it, is that people do see what works for some people and then it is the quick fix. They think that this particular act, class, process will make their child successful. So often, patience and nurturing is totally forgotten or not even brought up as a viable option in parenting. Unfortunately, these are not strong suits in main stream society, it makes me sad.
I'll stop now,
Kelli
Peggy <peggy@...> wrote:
From: Helen Hegener <HEM-Editor@...>
>I have some real concerns about the assumptions he makes, he says:
> "If you would look at my web page on
> this---www.educationbeginsatbirth.com---you will learn more about it
> and me at the bio section."
>
> I did take a look at Marsh's site, and it's interesting reading. I've
> always believed there was a direct correlation between early social
> and mental stimulation (not necessarily 'schoolwork' per se, but
> loving and supportive interaction between parent and child) and later
> learning abilities, and I've often wondered why there's still a
> strong perception that "learning" is something that should start
> happening around the age when children would normally go off to
> school. I know most homeschoolers know better, that children are
> learning from birth (and perhaps even before) but still, most of the
> articles we receive are directed toward a sort of "parallel school
> age" group.
>
> Marsh's no-nonsense approach to the topic of very early childhood
> learning makes me wonder why the whole subject hasn't received more
> discussion. Or perhaps it has and I missed it...
> The very best and most powerful brian stimulant is reading!Is this really true for all toddlers (he started teaching his son for 30/40
> I am not talking about reading to children or any kind of a reading
> readiness program. On the contrary, I believe in giving children the
> whole enchilada and teaching them how to read books to us!
> Accordingly, I strongly recommend that we begin to teach reading
> (with phonics) as soon as children begin to talk!
>
> I am saying that when preschoolers learn how to read. . .
>
> THEY BECOME EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT AND
> WONDERFUL READERS.
minutes per day at 16 months)? Here we have our children, who even as the
youngest of infants, are trying to communicate with us, who very visibly show
their hope that we are listening to them. What happens when we interject our
own agenda into our conversations with them? What happens to the process when
the product becomes paramount?
Bev Bos wrote a book in 1983 in direct response to this sort of "teach 'em
early and make geniuses out of 'em", rhetoric that was so popular then in the
media. In her book, _Before The Basics_ she writes:
"Nowhere is our impatience for the end product more apparent, and probably
more damaging, than it is in our pushing our children too early into formal
learning experiences--particularly reading. We should know better. A
generation of research and observation has produced solid evidence that shows
the many complex developmental stages children must go through before they
will be physically ready to master and retain the skills that literacy
demands....The current emphasis on early reading--at ages three and four--is
producing some terrible consequences for many children. If some children are
being pushed before they are ready and thus invited into early failure, other
children who may show no immediate problems with early mastery of reading
skills are also being damaged, I believe, by being deprived of a sufficient
foundation and background in language on which to base later formal reading
experience. I don't believe we are damaging this second group less than the
first: it is as if we are taking early talent as a signal to stunt growth.
Earliest isn't best. Fastest isn't best. If what we want for our children is a
lifetime of excellence, in ability, in knowledge--we must be responsible
enough to wait and thorough enough to look at all sides of their development."
I think the doubts that Bev Bos expresses about an emphasis on reading too
early are valid ones. Children are so *different* from one another. One plan
fits all just doesn't seem reasonable to me. I think infants benefit from our
loving attention; from being held and nursed and kept close to us and the
other members of our families as they grow and develop in a naturally
stimulating environment. But phonics at two? Children who spontaneously
develop reading skills that early age don't seem to need phonics or anything
else. My personal feeling is that some children are genetically hardwired
with talents for various skills. As the mother of both a gifted early reader
and a late reader, I've had some experience with the continuum of children's
natural abilities myself. I think that maybe this guy Marsh's theories suffer
from an inadequate amount of pertinent data: one data point is just not enough
to base a theory of education upon. Yes, he had fun and what he calls success
experimenting on his one and only son. I just can't help but wonder what his
son lost in those years since Marsh seems to have been very pedagogical in his
approach... And, less altruistically, he hints at a cost for a program that he
will present to parents if they contact him.
Peggy
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Peggy
Kelli wrote:
Peggy
> I always read to my babys/toddlers but it was more of a together time and nurturing time. Looking at colorful pictures, and enjoying each other. Who knows if they really benefited from the reading or if it was just being held. And I can't even imagine actually teaching a 16 month old how to read!?! My kids would have been soooo out of there. They had cupboards to explore, plants to look at, toys to play with....and so on. >What a vivid picture this paints! So true Kelli.
Peggy