hothousing? - Page 4

[loraxc]

Now Johnny isn't riding a bike until he's 8 but his parents sure know how to do a Letter of the Week program.

I really have noticed that bike riding, swimming, soccer, etc are all started much earlier now, too. I totally don't agree that kids are delaying learning phsyical skills in favor of academic ones. I think they're both being pushed.

In my day kids learned to ride a bike at 6 or 7. Almost all the children we know now learned before 4. Ditto with swimming. There are 3yo soccer leagues, etc.--unheard of in our time.

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by Holiztic

I am just trying to understand what it means to "teach one's self". The way I see it, if i get a guitar and just play around until I can make something that sounds good, I taught myself to play guitar. If I (of my own volition) ask my DH to show me a C chord, then a B chord, etc., even if I'm a phenom and learn really easily, I still say he taught me. Yes, that means ALL children are taught to read or taught their letters. There's really no way for a child to teach themself if even having questions answered is considered "teaching them"." I guess that's my point. They are all taught, just some at their own (very precocious-gifted) request and very easily/naturally, others are taught in a more pressured way at a later age.

Many experts on giftedness distinguish between taught and self-taught early reading. So if by your definition self-taught early reading is not possible, I think your definition is not the common one.

If I asked my DH to show me which string was the G string and I proceeded to figure out on my own how to play "Mary Had a Little Lamb," I would absolutely say that I taught myself. Even if you could say that he taught me which string was "G" (which I also disagree with, because I think that there is a meaningful difference between "told" and "taught"), you can't say that he taught me the song, or taught me to play. Because it's not as if he sat down and taught me how to do it. I sought out information from him, then I put it together and turned it into something else.

I think early reading is a bit like that. Yes, kids pick up bits & pieces here & there. Sometimes they ask, and sometimes they are told. Other things they simply figure out on their own. And then, when a kid is suddenly reading despite no formal lessons and no intention on the part of the parent to teach reading, IMO the kid has taught himself.

[pigpokey]

Originally Posted by loraxc

I really have noticed that bike riding, swimming, soccer, etc are all started much earlier now, too. I totally don't agree that kids are delaying learning phsyical skills in favor of academic ones. I think they're both being pushed.

Soccer is also an early start sport in my community, and not my thing so I can't speak to it but lots of my friends' tykes started at 3 or 4.

In our part of Lake Wobegon, I don't know that many kids who can bike (I'm not talking about training wheels) or swim competently at 5 or 6. I know a few including mine and we've been quite lonely all this time. I do know plenty who can write sentences though.

[eilonwy]

Originally Posted by Holiztic

I am not sure I understand how a child learns letters without being taught them? I am asking this out of pure misunderstanding, not trying to push this time, I promise.

So we read story books (no alphabet-style books), so DS hears the words. Unless the word is "a" as in "a dog and a cat", then he doesn't hear the individual letters. So how would a child learn letters by themself? I suppose what is meant here is the "child-lead" teaching, like the child asks "what's that letter?" I am not claiming anyone shoud ignore those questions, but that would be teaching letters, just at the child's reuqest.

So what does it mean that a child knows letters without being taught?

Bella taught herself on Starfall. Mike had set up a desktop icon for Boobah, and Bella remembered where it was and started logging herself in. So yes, she did have explicit instruction but she initiated (and perservered).

I also learned phonetically, with a set of alphabet blocks that my mother bought me for my second birthday. She'd read somewhere that a two year old should be able to stack ten blocks, and she didn't know if I could do that or not because I didn't have any so she bought the only ones she could afford at that time. Between that and The Electric Company, I was reading well and fluently in less than two weeks. My mother most assuredly wasn't teaching me, as she was quite busy with my brother (ten months younger than I) and my completely insane father.

That said, lots of children (especially children who learn very very young) learn to read whole words. I'm pretty sure that's what Bean did, despite Starfall; I know that's how Mike learned to read.

Originally Posted by Roar

What is also possible, and I'm sure many parents here can relate, there are kids who from very little exposure make leaps and bounds through subjects in ways that are surprising and confusing to their parents. It is wild. Some kids don't need "this says B E A R" even one single time before they learn to read.

This is so true, especially with the alphabet. I mean let's face it, the letters (for the most part) sound like their names suggest. Bean learned the alphabet song (and I still have no idea where, but it was probably from one of his cousins) and immediately understood that B said /b/, etc. For some children these connections are entirely intuitive; They learn the fundamentals (arithmetic, reading, cause & effect) as though they already knew and just needed a reminder. It's fun (and occasionally spooky ).

[loraxc]

In our part of Lake Wobegon, I don't know that many kids who can bike (I'm not talking about training wheels) or swim competently at 5 or 6. I know a few including mine and we've been quite lonely all this time. I do know plenty who can write sentences though.

Interesting. Among the families we know, ALL the kids (except my DD) were riding well without training wheels between 4-6, and the vast majority (except DD) were also swimming very well by 4. None that I know of, except my DD and the one kid who is in first grade, can write sentences (actually, none are reading except my DD and the one in 1st). Most kids are also in sports of some kind--gymnastics, soccer, Tball, ballet, peewee football.

Our peer group consists of highly educated people who are also pretty outdoorsy. Not money- or status-focused, though.

[hottmama]

I have no idea how Luka, my 3.5yo, learned to read. I was trying to teach my older son to read and Luka was reading and spelling words before my big one could remember all the letter sounds. I didn't aim instruction at my then-2 year old, that's for sure, but I was homeschooling my kindergartener and it would have been impossible for him not to overhear our lessons.
I'd probably be considered a hothousing mom now, but I really am not naturally that way... Luka is doing 1st grade language arts, math and science online, at his request (same program we were using with his brother last year). He logs into the program and chooses which lessons to do and for how long (usually 2-4 hours a day, and he's 1/2 through 1st grade language arts-- I've told him he can't move onto 2nd grade for a while so he'll be doing the 1st grade "extensions" after he finishes the curriculum).
Said kid also goes to a play-based preschool, takes swim lessons, and could ride a two-wheeler (his brother's) at 2.5. We encourage outdoor play and have a great yard with lots of toys and a pond. Yesterday he told his big bro, "Let's catch some amphibians!" and sent a slug off on a leaf boat he made.
I have one kid who I didn't even consider academics with until 5. I'm not that kind of mom. I just go with the flow and let my kids be themselves.

[eilonwy]

Originally Posted by hottmama

I'd probably be considered a hothousing mom now, but I really am not naturally that way... Luka is doing 1st grade language arts, math and science online, at his request (same program we were using with his brother last year). He logs into the program and chooses which lessons to do and for how long (usually 2-4 hours a day, and he's 1/2 through 1st grade language arts-- I've told him he can't move onto 2nd grade for a while so he'll be doing the 1st grade "extensions" after he finishes the curriculum)....

I have one kid who I didn't even consider academics with until 5. I'm not that kind of mom. I just go with the flow and let my kids be themselves.

These two statements are contradictory. If the child is the driving force, by definition you can't be hothousing. Likewise, your attitude-- for instance, you're not permitting your three year old to move into second grade coursework as soon as he finishes the first grade work. That's contradictory to the idea of hothousing, which would be pushing your son to finish the first grade work as quickly as possible so that he can move into the second grade work as early as possible.

[Holiztic]

I'm not sure if this particualr line of questioning I've had going this week in here and my other thread "Diff. b/w ahead and gifted") just tempted fate to bring this about or what, but just today (both first time ever) DS started "spelling" (I use that term loosely!). Not words, but just saying under his breath "A, O, K, E" etc. to nothing in particular (not pretending to read something). I am pretty sure he doesn't know what they look like specifically, but verbally he's starting to recogmnize and know them as letters. Where'd he get it? I don't know. I used to sing "Give me a "c", give me an "l" (c-l-e-a-n) while cleaning" but that was ages ago, and only that word. That's all I can think of, but you guys are really helping me understand that the gifted kid doesn't need flashcards and "reading" vidoes. Then later today we were at a playground he's never been to before (we're out of town) and they had those spinning plastic "blocks" with numbers (why are those on playgrounds anyway?) and he turns one and says "that's a two" and then turns it again and says "that's a three", and by golly he was right! Where he got that? I also don't know!

So I'm eating my words--mostly. Still not into alphabet toys and such, but I'm starting to get that we'd have to go underground to stop this. I'm just going to keep it light and playful as best I can!

I want to thank you all for not being combative with me, it seems you all get that I, too, was not being combative.

Thanks!

[Roar]

Maybe you need to test this out. Perhaps there is some kind of reverse psychology posting universe karma where you get the opposite of what you expect. Time to start saying you are sure you will never win the lottery.

One of the fun things with kids is when they surprise us. Enjoy!

[no5no5]

[Tigerle]

Originally Posted by loraxc

Interesting. Among the families we know, ALL the kids (except my DD) were riding well without training wheels between 4-6, and the vast majority (except DD) were also swimming very well by 4.

Sorry this is kinda OT but that means swimming lessons from 3 onwards, yes? Not something I'd ever have considered - I know of a pre-school that does swimming with a 3s class and thought that was rather pushing it. Do a lot of kids really well with this and what kind of program is it? (maybe you can PM me? Thanks!)

[pigpokey]

Originally Posted by Tigerle

Sorry this is kinda OT but that means swimming lessons from 3 onwards, yes? Not something I'd ever have considered - I know of a pre-school that does swimming with a 3s class and thought that was rather pushing it. Do a lot of kids really well with this and what kind of program is it? (maybe you can PM me? Thanks!)

Actually if you take them to the water regularly starting as babies, most children do not have any issues with it and will start swimming quite joyfully without lessons. It is a year round commitment. I think of it like language immersion. There are strength issues with lifting the head coming up for breaths with the 1 and 2 year olds and with some good lesson programs, they work around that by teaching babies to roll to their backs to breathe. This is not something I've seen children come to on their own. Mine would just stay close enough to the side to swim there, or to me to breathe at 1 and 2. Though my son could come up for breaths and keep swimming at 1.5. That was unusual.

Three year olds tend to be fearful about water. I'd say the best time to introduce swimming is well before that or a bit after, though I'm sure many will do well no matter when they start especially if it is in a committed context like the preschool you describe where they will have time to work through their issues without a session ending etc.

I certainly do not think I hothoused my children by passing on my love of the water or my ideas of a good way to spend part of each week. There is an issue that arises with competitive swimming in that the early swimmers who win races because they have been swimming longer than the kids who started swimming at 6 and/or because they hit their growth spurts faster are at a disadvantage compared to the kids who had to hustle to keep up and were willing to do so. Oh, they're not at a disadvantage if they have a growth / hard work mindset, but a significant group of them are not used to losing as the hard workers catch up, and decide to move on.

[LauraLoo]

Originally Posted by pigpokey

Actually if you take them to the water regularly starting as babies, most children do not have any issues with it and will start swimming quite joyfully without lessons. It is a year round commitment. I think of it like language immersion. There are strength issues with lifting the head coming up for breaths with the 1 and 2 year olds and with some good lesson programs, they work around that by teaching babies to roll to their backs to breathe. This is not something I've seen children come to on their own. .

We did this with our ds and dd when we lived in a home with a pool, so it was more of a safety issue than anything. DS started lessons just shy of 18 months, and dd started at 11 months. We continued year round lessons until we moved away. DS had the greatest benefit for continuing as long as he did - he was just shy of 6 yo. DD was about 3 when we moved, and we didn't pick up lessons until last winter. While she had some catching up to do, neither of them were afraid of the water and seemed to naturally know how to breathe and swim, although you can tell with dd that it isn't quite as natural, and she has to work at it a bit more. I like the language immersion analogy. As a child, I didn't start lessons until about 4, and by then I was very nervous around water and to this day, swimming isn't my favorite activity. If I get splashed in the face, or pulled down, I begin to panic.

I could see ds, in particular, being very good at competitive swimming, but he has no interest beyond recreational swimming and learning a few new strokes once in awhile. Unless he desires more, we aren't going to go that route. I'm content that both dc's are proficient swimmers in that they *can* swim.

Both of my dc's are in line for competitive gymnastics, because they love it and have wonderful instructors. Both dc's are willing and wanting to work hard at it, so I support it. They've been exposed to other sports, but always want to come back to gymnastics. If they decided to only do it recreationally, I'd support that as well. I have a hard time imagining parents who push their children into early competitive sports if the child has no interest - I just know it wouldn't work with my dc's and would be frustrating for all involved. I know it happens, but I can't figure out how a parent could make their child work hard at something they just don't want to do or do at that level. But, then again, I don't get hothousing at all, either.

[MyZymurgy]

Originally Posted by LauraLoo

We did this with our ds and dd when we lived in a home with a pool, so it was more of a safety issue than anything.

Ditto... DS (14 mo) just started swim "lessons". He LOVES it -- and the "lessons" at this age are really more about getting used to the water. I never considered that an outsider may see this as hothousing until now. It just never occurred to me. Our motivation for getting DS into swim lessons early was primarily for safety since we live on a lake. But it's also a great way for DS to expend some of his endless energy and get to play with other kids (which he really loves).

For those who are very sensitive and careful about NOT teaching their young children anything, I'm curious if the same philosophy is apply to the physical. I imagine parents with such a philosophy wouldn't do something like swim lessons... but I'm curious about the day to day stuff. For example, when your child is learning to throw a ball are you careful to not demonstrate how to throw a ball yourself? (Maybe just handing it back when they throw it at you?) Or when they are learning to use a spoon - so you just wait until they pick it up themselves and just offer finger foods until then? Maybe my examples are lame - but hopefully you get the gist. I have no argument or agenda with this question, btw... just purely curious.

This turned into a very interesting thread. I've learned a lot, and I love hearing about different parenting styles.

[Bekka]

Just wanted to pop in here and say that we have an 11 yo and a 9 yo dd's that can't ride a bike. Honestly, I think it was a mistake to wait this long; we're going to have to do it "scientifically." I'd recommend getting your kids to learn by 7, anyway.

(These are kids who, along with their younger brother, were reading chapter books by 4 or 5, just if anyone is curious).

We put a lot of time and effort into our music practice.

I actually believe that we're supposed to teach our kids. I'd propose that "most" kids wouldn't be saying, "what is that" and you'd therefore not be saying "it's a D or S" (or number, or whatever). My children (and my current 3 yo) have always been interested in the world around them and the things that they see. Whether it's "5 kinds of matter" (11 yo) or "My dress is pink" (3 yo), children have innate inquisitiveness, and it's our job to fill their pitchers. That's my WHOLE take on parenting.

[MyZymurgy]

I agree... this whole thread has made me realize how much I am teaching my son - but I never really thought I was being a pushy teacher type.

Even at 14 months, DS is constantly wanting to know what things are. And I tell him! And we read together a lot, and that certainly leads to learning. As I have reflected, I realized how much of our typical interaction involves me (often indirectly) teaching him something.

[eilonwy]

Originally Posted by Tigerle

Sorry this is kinda OT but that means swimming lessons from 3 onwards, yes? Not something I'd ever have considered - I know of a pre-school that does swimming with a 3s class and thought that was rather pushing it. Do a lot of kids really well with this and what kind of program is it? (maybe you can PM me? Thanks!)

I enrolled Bean in a swimming class at the Y when he was three because he already loved to swim; We couldn't afford to do it twice. Boobah's never had a swimming class at all and she also loves to swim, she's a little fish. I've got a niece who shocked people her very first time in a swimming pool at the ripe old age of 15 months-- she, too, got in and took off like a little fish.

As with reading, for some children swimming well at four means lessons at three or earlier and for some it just means that they had the opportunity to get into a swimming pool. I'd gently caution against the logic which suggests that only a child who's been taking formal lessons in swimming all year round from a very young age can be a strong, safe swimmer at four. It's exactly that kind of thinking that leads parents to believe that there's some benefit to enrolling a child in Kumon at two, or that such things are necessary for any child to be a strong, fluent reader at four.

[Tigerle]

Thank you for educating me on the swimming question! For the record, I do not consider anyone here a hothouser for letting their kids learn swimming, heaven forbid - I hope I did not offend anyone.

I am so interested myself because it is a safety question for me, too - we do not have a pool in the house, but lakes and rivers in the area and we have a boat, so if DS swam early it'd just be another worry off my mind. (Um, if you haven't noticed from the general tendency of my posts I'm ah, a worrier.)

Year round immersion in water (what a nice pun!) is something I cannot offer to my DS because I am so prone to headcolds if I get my hair wet in winter,though we do go to the lake all the time in summer and visit a public pool occasionally (with armbands! And on the boat he wears a lifevest at all times!) so formal lessons it will have to be at some point. I am so surprised that children can learn to keep themselves afloat so early and that it did not appear to be considered particularly advanced by you all. I think I understand better now what that particular pre-school is doing (it is a language immersion school, too).
Up to now, I thought formal swimming lessons at three were something you might offer a physically very talented child, like you'd consider formal piano lessons for a child showing talent in music. He is not afraid of the water at all or wasn't last time we went to the pool (he is an anxious child, and his fears change) so I'll try to get us to the pool more once we've gotten rid of our headcolds and will look for a program for little ones in spring or summer.
Thanks again!

[Tigerle]

Originally Posted by eilonwy

As with reading, for some children swimming well at four means lessons at three or earlier and for some it just means that they had the opportunity to get into a swimming pool. I'd gently caution against the logic which suggests that only a child who's been taking formal lessons in swimming all year round from a very young age can be a strong, safe swimmer at four. It's exactly that kind of thinking that leads parents to believe that there's some benefit to enrolling a child in Kumon at two, or that such things are necessary for any child to be a strong, fluent reader at four.

Good point! I had a thought forming in my head comparing the swimming discussion to the reading discussion and you've put it to paper, as it were.
I imagine that the all year round immersion is most important in keeping anxious kids from developing a fear of water which will inhibit their learning. I cannot imagine a similar problem with books for very young children (maybe for a kindergartner traumatized by a horrible teacher). I'd never argue (certainly not on this forum) that talent does not play a major part in just how much formal instruction a child needs at anything!
It's how early kids can learn to swim overall, and that this was considered normal on a board that is not primarily about physically gifted children (though some feature occasionally) which surprised me so.
And mine has low muscle tone and a big head, and is not the most coordinated of kids - it'll take some teaching for us I believe. I'll update on one of the monthly threads...

[minkin03]

Originally Posted by eilonwy

As with reading, for some children swimming well at four means lessons at three or earlier and for some it just means that they had the opportunity to get into a swimming pool. I'd gently caution against the logic which suggests that only a child who's been taking formal lessons in swimming all year round from a very young age can be a strong, safe swimmer at four. It's exactly that kind of thinking that leads parents to believe that there's some benefit to enrolling a child in Kumon at two, or that such things are necessary for any child to be a strong, fluent reader at four.

My 3 year old has been swimming since she was 18 months old, she took 1 week of classes and went from there. She swims completely unassisted (she likes to pretend she's Ariel). She just absolutely loves the water, always has.

here's a video from August: http://www.flickr.com/photos/karalynae/3850400035/