ugggghhh!!! can i vent and say how much i hate the concept 'educational'? - Page 4

[Sierra]

The abc toys are the ones that get under my skin. Knowing the abcs isn't necessary for literacy. In fact, it can be a distraction. I chose not to teach my kids the abcs, and I had to basically be counter-cultural to do it. Somehow we kept receiving abc toys and books from folks (the books we translated into letter sounds, but the toys we passed on or used rarely).

I firmly believe that the names of the letters should come after learning the sounds of the letters. A few of the abc toys teach sounds, but they confuse the issue by bringing in the names too.

I have a kid who taught herself to read at age three, and while I know that isn't something every kid will do (my son seems to be working on reading now, but he is five...some kids will learn to read at 3, some at 8, and it isn't a big deal either way), I really think if she had learned the letter names first it would have gotten in the way and taken her longer. She loves to read, and it has really reduced her frustration level in life...so I am glad I didn't slow her down with trying to teach her letter names.

[meemee]

Originally Posted by Youngfrankenstein

I wonder what things "your" kids don't know by kindy? I'm seriously asking, not trying to sound flip. They begin trying to teach sight words by the end of the year. Are yours supposed to know other things before kindy? (I just typed 'kidney' first)

uuughhh!!! yup!! here they start sight words in K by the THIRD month.

as far as i remember my dd had to know how to write her name, colours, numbers till 10. plus she had to be independent. tie her shoes, undo her jacket, be mostly able to open her lunch pail...

the point is i understand parents who start preK at 4. esp. if they had a hard time in K. they dont want their kids to go thru that. but it pains me to see the mass hysteria around it.

ESPECIALLY... ESPECIALLY when teh kids tank by middle school. i like how the rest of the world has tougher education standards so that they do 3 years of college instead of 4. A LOT of college general ed is covered in high school. so when kids dont go to college they have a good baseline when they graduate HS. there is no social promotion. you go to the next grade when you show you can do the work. i was talking to someone from argentina today. she said by HS she had done so much science as well as world history and world geography and world politics so that they are well informed of the world and making their own decisions when voting or when reading hte newspaper. of course its not a foof proof system and they have their faults too.....

what i really object to is that what is defined as 'educational' is really NOT. there is no encouragement of group work or critical thinking. just 'vomiting' out facts is not educational. which means the child notices that just my shirt is not blue, but the sky is blue too.

for instance that - was it leapfrog? alphabet caterpillar - horribly educational but they had a great feature. you could turn off all the alphabet stuff and play just the music for each alphabet. that was pretty cool. that part was never ever advertised as their selling point, but the letter sounds and phonetics were.

[EdnaMarie]

I don't see how incorporating learning into play is so bad.

But there is so much learning beyond 26 letters and 9 digits and 0! There is just SO MUCH about music beyond a riff of Boccharini! It's the "educational" toys that are so... not educational. Kids learn physics, they get that physical instinct, by playing with water and splashing and building with sand and dirt and mud. They get their sense of gravity from running and jumping. They get their sense of sound from a wide variety of traditional music and singing and playing on things as diverse as pots and pans and xylophones.

I think the OP was talking about these toys aimed at basically making parents feel their children were being surrounded by pre-k skill set educational opportunities, which might actually be right for a school system that teaches to bubble tests.

But for those of us concerned about real intellectual, physical, and emotional growth, there is nothing compared to climbing a tree and making up alternative versions to old double-dutch rhymes... "Cinderella, dressed in yellow, went upstairs to kiss a fellow, got real mellow, slept on a pillow...", making up narratives, playing hopscotch and counting it out...

Those skills are all over.

It's like nutritional facts, as someone pointed out. If it says "healthy" on it... it's probably one of the least healthy things you can eat.

[theatermom]

I agree with so many of you here. Much of what is deemed "educational" is redundant at best, and damaging at worst. There's nothing in a toy designed to educate that you couldn't learn in some other, often better, way. After all, the vast majority of these toys didn't exist 50 years ago, and definitely not 100 or 200 years ago, and people then were hardly morons.

Play *is* education. Puppies taken from their mothers and siblings too soon often have a harder time socializing appropriately (i.e. not biting, listening to a pack leader, etc.) than puppies who have had that play time. I think that many of these artificial toys/activities, if foisted upon the child, hinder his/her natural development by essentially removing them from their natural order of play. And irritate the heck out of most parents.

That said, just because something has educational value (mazes, some kinds of activity/work books, crosswords, picture books, even some kinds of flash cards and manipulatives, and so forth) doesn't automatically mean that it's contrived and damaging. These things always have to be viewed in context of the bigger picture of the child's life, and how s/he incorporates them into her/his life.

To the parents of a child who thinks literally, certain non-open ended toys may be a blessing. But certainly they're not the only option. Obviously, we've had literal minded children for most of time, and these toys are brand new, relatively speaking. In fact, most of the children I know like this are much more taken with real objects and doing real activities. They don't want to pretend to be a banker, they want to do some banking. They don't want to play camp out, they want to pack up and do it.

Again, though, it's the trend that's troublesome more than anything else. Keeping up with the Joneses has become as much about having a non-average child as it has about money and possessions. And annoying, "educational" toys marketed by big companies play a very real role in encouraging this trend to continue.

[EdnaMarie]

Keeping up with the Joneses has become as much about having a non-average child as it has about money and possessions.

So well said!

[meemee]

Originally Posted by theatermom

Keeping up with the Joneses has become as much about having a non-average child as it has about money and possessions. And annoying, "educational" toys marketed by big companies play a very real role in encouraging this trend to continue.

Originally Posted by EdnaMarie

So well said!

yes YES YES!!!! well said!!! i soooo agree. i think THIS is the crux of the matter. yup yup. i see it all around me. parents always, always comparing children and it makes me sooo sad esp. when my dd is seen as the more advanced.

the saddest was when a mother would belittle her 3 year old son publicly because my two year old was already potty trained completely. at that time the only way i knew to counter that was to compare the two kids and show where dd was behind and the son was ahead. thankfully we didnt have much social interaction. they moved. but it was sooo gut wrenchingly upsetting to me to see the mom behave that way. and she just couldnt listen to any of the moms telling her otherwise.

[Laurel]

I also hate the term "learning" when it is only used to refer to academic learning. My personal belief is in not pushing academics on young children, but I've had friends say things like, "But they just love to learn at that age!" And I'm thinking, duh! Of course they love to learn! But that's an entirely separate issue from whether or not they are ready for academics! Learning is not synonymous with ABCs and 123s! Everything a young child does is learning!

[lonegirl]

But everything has an opportunity for learning. Play time is part of learning time.....playing in a splash pool or tub....a child will learn about things that sink/float/hold water/drain.....all while playing. Drawing/scribbling/printing all helps to fine tune fine motor skills. Playing hopscotch, jumprope etc...helps teach balance and strengthens muscles.
My son has always loved the Leapster2 he got it when he turned two as a gift. I love that it has helped him to read, print, draw and form an appreciation in all things as such. He loves to play with his flashcards....he creates his own games with them. Shape puzzles he mastered very young and loved to play with them....
I think that some kids are just drawn to things educational because they see them as fun play...just as marketed. His fave pc games are Jumpstart, Pajama Sam, Freddi Fish....these are all educational.
One of his fave toys is a maze in a ball (marketed to 6-106y) he does the maze he makes his own games and worlds within it. It requires a lot of dexterity and his helping to develop it in him.
So really we all learn and can learn in all we do. Whether marketed that way or not.

[asraidevin]

I highly reccommend Buy, Buy Baby: How Consumer Culture Manipulates Parents and Harms Young Minds by Susan Gregory Thomas http://www.amazon.com/Buy-Baby-Consu.../dp/0618463518

from the amazon page (because i'm snuggling a sleepin baby):

It’s no secret that toy and media corporations manipulate the insecurities of parents to move their products, but Buy, Buy Baby unveils the chilling fact that these corporations are using -- and often funding -- the latest research in child development to sell directly to babies and toddlers. Susan Gregory Thomas offers even more unnerving epiphanies: the lack of evidence that “educational” shows and toys provide any educational benefit at all for young children and the growing evidence that some of these products actually impair early development and could harm our kids socially and cognitively for life.