Where Do I Start?

[PokerDad]

The read aloud handbook is at the library. I have put it on my list of to read.

The article linked above was poignant to a larger discussion that's recurring here on BK and perhaps my comments should be in a different thread, but....

pg 9 of the article (the last page) says
"Cognitively, experience is sequential: Experiences in infancy establish habits of seeking, noticing, and incorporating new and more complex experiences, as well as schemas for categorizing and thinking about experiences."

I find it somewhat disturbing that the educational hegemony (for lack of a better term at the moment) disapproves of early learning so strongly (especially reading) and they often cite "readiness" as the default argument. Their assumption, which has been demonstrated in some studies, is that all kids develop at relatively equal paces. In other words, at around 1 year old +/- a certain number of months, a child learns to walk, learns to talk, etc. At around age 5 +/- a certain number of years, a child is ready to learn how to read.

Well, the quote above suggest perhaps a deeper reasoning (which pretty much everyone at BK is already aware). People are ready when they've had adequate exposure to make them ready. Using this logic, the child in the welfare home (as cited in the article) would "be ready" far later than the child in the upper strata. I'm sure there's some truth to that. However, it's plainly obvious that a person can become ready (for anything, but in this case we're talking about reading specifically) by deliberately supplying experiences and exposure to materials that would prompt readiness.
Why does there have to be a time line on this? (there doesn't... to an extent)

If you do early learning, not only does your child learn more NOW, but they're being set up to learn more later. That's what the quote tells me. So what benefit is there in waiting? (answer, none)

Effectively, the education establishment has not really thought through their entire paradigm, and it lacks and does not account for observed phenomena. In science, their hypothesis' and theories would be rejected outright.

[Mandabplus3]

I would add one point perhaps the educational system is set up to say kids are ready to lean to read at 5 because that is as early as they can get their hands on them in a compulsory setting... Perhaps its as simple as that, a knowledge that the majority of parents just won't do what it takes to teach them earlier.

[FomerlyMrsObedih_Now_BatmansMama]

Effectively, the education establishment has not really thought through their entire paradigm, and it lacks and does not account for observed phenomena. In science, their hypothesis' and theories would be rejected outright.

They stopped thinking about it after Piaget. Our whole education system (UK/US) is based on the idea that there are fixed biological stages of development. Whereas educational theorists like Montessori and Vygotsky (with his Zone of Proximal Development theory) believe that with independence / support children can move quickly from their current level of ability to a higher one. How? By keeping work sensibly challenging, and giving the necessary scaffolds for the child to meet that challenge. You should check out Tools of the Mind (good elaboration on Vygotsky's theories, click the link for an article about the book http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/magazine/27tools-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1) and How Children Learn: From Montessori to Vygotsky - Educational Theories and Approaches Made Easy, for more on the ideologies that influence popular attitudes towards early learning.

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214772
• Latest: addisonjones

Stats

• Total Posts: 110526
• Total Topics: 19136
• Online Today: 236
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 113
• Total: 113