Miseducation : PRESCHOOLERS AT RISK

Rating:
Summary: Read a library copy
Review:

I was deeply disappointed by this book. I was seeking a reasoned presentation of the case against early teaching, and instead ended up with this unsupported diatribe by a man who seems to misunderstand a lot of what he opposes.

The alarm bells went off early. In the first chapter Elkind repeatedly talks about "pushing" and "pressuring" children, using loaded language to try to turn us against the idea of teaching them. Someone should explain to him that it's only pushing if the child resists. I have also read the pro side of this controversy, particularly Glenn Doman, who emphasizes repeatedly that parent and child should both be having a wonderful time and you should stop immediately if that isn't so.

I could understand the casual use of loaded language, since this is a polemic. However, Elkind continues mischaracterizing left and right. He blithely slots parents who teach their young children into one of several cute categories, and proceeds to describe them in improbable detail. For instance, "Another group of parents want their children to become Olympic-class athletes or competitors. Gold-Medal parents tend to be in routine middle-management positions with little hope for advancement . . . ." And he goes on like that for some time, describing these so-called Gold-Medal parents as if everyone teaching their child a sport at a young age were precisely identical. And there are lots of other cute labels, like Outward Bound parents and Prodigy parents. Apparently we are to see people who teach their young children as "types" rather than as people. And these absurd stereotypes are not supported in any way; he just blandly asserts them as fact.

Elkind talks about one boy who was taught early and toilet-trained late, attempting to imply that these things are connected. But "late" toilet-training is quite common these days, and we see many three-year-olds in diapers whose parents have never taught them anything.

He also talks about one boy who was taught early and is doing quite well, and congratulates the mother on her son's good luck as if the boy had dodged a bullet. But he presents no statistics to back this up. He just thinks the boy must have been lucky because his happiness doesn't accord with Elkind's views on the dangers of early teaching.

Where are his figures on how taught vs. untaught children fare later in life? There aren't any. Although the "nine pages of notes and bibiography" mentioned by a previous reviewer do exist, many of them are references to things like _Time_ and _Money_. Others are citations of the works he's slamming. There's very little research cited, and he is obviously cherry-picking his sources.

I became disgusted with the book when I reached the part where Elkind argues that children should not be exposed to computer use. He briefly mentions Seymour Papert, the creator of LOGO, but takes the tone that this idea was outrageous and completely omits to mention Papert's impressive results. This is a fine example of the cherry-picking I mentioned.

He then makes a statement which is truly awesome in its ignorance. He asserts "The problem with such programs is that they presuppose a level of mental ability higher than that which they seek to encourage. Put differently, a child who really understands programming is at a sufficiently high level of mental development that learning programming is not really going to promote additional mental development."

Programming does not promote mental development, according to Elkind. But anyone who has ever learned to program, as a small child or an older child or a teenager or an adult, knows better. In fact it is difficult to think of anything which does more to promote mental development, although music and pure mathematics rival it. Perhaps the basic art of reading is even more effective, but Elkind is also against teaching small children to read!

Elkind suggests a set of blocks instead of LOGO. A set of blocks is great, but why on Earth can't a child have both?

This is already too long, so I'll end the blow-by-blow analysis. In summary, I suggest checking this book out of the library if you're curious about it. It certainly isn't worth a place in one's permanent home library.

I remain in search of a book which can make a reasoned case against early teaching of children who enjoy it. It's difficult to disagree with the idea that one shouldn't place tiny children in a high-pressure all-day academic program, but few people were ever arguing for that in the first place.

Rating:
Summary: Read a library copy
Review:

I was deeply disappointed by this book. I was seeking a reasoned presentation of the case against early teaching, and instead ended up with this unsupported diatribe by a man who seems to misunderstand a lot of what he opposes.

The alarm bells went off early. In the first chapter Elkind repeatedly talks about "pushing" and "pressuring" children, using loaded language to try to turn us against the idea of teaching them. Someone should explain to him that it's only pushing if the child resists. I have also read the pro side of this controversy, particularly Glenn Doman, who emphasizes repeatedly that parent and child should both be having a wonderful time and you should stop immediately if that isn't so.

I could understand the casual use of loaded language, since this is a polemic. However, Elkind continues mischaracterizing left and right. He blithely slots parents who teach their young children into one of several cute categories, and proceeds to describe them in improbable detail. For instance, "Another group of parents want their children to become Olympic-class athletes or competitors. Gold-Medal parents tend to be in routine middle-management positions with little hope for advancement . . . ." And he goes on like that for some time, describing these so-called Gold-Medal parents as if everyone teaching their child a sport at a young age were precisely identical. And there are lots of other cute labels, like Outward Bound parents and Prodigy parents. Apparently we are to see people who teach their young children as "types" rather than as people. And these absurd stereotypes are not supported in any way; he just blandly asserts them as fact.

Elkind talks about one boy who was taught early and toilet-trained late, attempting to imply that these things are connected. But "late" toilet-training is quite common these days, and we see many three-year-olds in diapers whose parents have never taught them anything.

He also talks about one boy who was taught early and is doing quite well, and congratulates the mother on her son's good luck as if the boy had dodged a bullet. But he presents no statistics to back this up. He just thinks the boy must have been lucky because his happiness doesn't accord with Elkind's views on the dangers of early teaching.

Where are his figures on how taught vs. untaught children fare later in life? There aren't any. Although the "nine pages of notes and bibiography" mentioned by a previous reviewer do exist, many of them are references to things like _Time_ and _Money_. Others are citations of the works he's slamming. There's very little research cited, and he is obviously cherry-picking his sources.

I became disgusted with the book when I reached the part where Elkind argues that children should not be exposed to computer use. He briefly mentions Seymour Papert, the creator of LOGO, but takes the tone that this idea was outrageous and completely omits to mention Papert's impressive results. This is a fine example of the cherry-picking I mentioned.

He then makes a statement which is truly awesome in its ignorance. He asserts "The problem with such programs is that they presuppose a level of mental ability higher than that which they seek to encourage. Put differently, a child who really understands programming is at a sufficiently high level of mental development that learning programming is not really going to promote additional mental development."

Programming does not promote mental development, according to Elkind. But anyone who has ever learned to program, as a small child or an older child or a teenager or an adult, knows better. In fact it is difficult to think of anything which does more to promote mental development, although music and pure mathematics rival it. Perhaps the basic art of reading is even more effective, but Elkind is also against teaching small children to read!

Elkind suggests a set of blocks instead of LOGO. A set of blocks is great, but why on Earth can't a child have both?

This is already too long, so I'll end the blow-by-blow analysis. In summary, I suggest checking this book out of the library if you're curious about it. It certainly isn't worth a place in one's permanent home library.

I remain in search of a book which can make a reasoned case against early teaching of children who enjoy it. It's difficult to disagree with the idea that one shouldn't place tiny children in a high-pressure all-day academic program, but few people were ever arguing for that in the first place.

Rating:
Summary: Right on Target!
Review: Dr. Elkind is not suggesting that young children should not be taught. Instead he is educating the public on the *appropriate* way to teach these very special members of our population. He offers nine pages of notes/bibliography to support his sound child development theories. At the time of publication he had logged in about 25 years in the early childhood field, which I think makes him an "expert". I have a degree in e.c.e. & taught pre-k for over a decade. Trust me, this book is right on target. I highly recommend it, especially for parents who are feeling pressured to have "superkids".

Rating:
Summary: Right on Target!
Review: Dr. Elkind is not suggesting that young children should not be taught. Instead he is educating the public on the *appropriate* way to teach these very special members of our population. He offers nine pages of notes/bibliography to support his sound child development theories. At the time of publication he had logged in about 25 years in the early childhood field, which I think makes him an "expert". I have a degree in e.c.e. & taught pre-k for over a decade. Trust me, this book is right on target. I highly recommend it, especially for parents who are feeling pressured to have "superkids".

Rating:
Summary: intelligence is NOT a bad thing!!!
Review: I have read this and similar books, such as "potty training for Yale", and their entire premise is ridiculous. Tiny children love to learn--anything they can, as much as they can, and as soon as possible. We are doing children a disservice by not meeting this sublimely human need. By the time children start formal education, it is actually much more difficult (and less fun!) for them to learn then it was when they were babies! For an inspiring and *scientifically sound* approach to the topic of early education, I IMPLORE you to first check out Glenn Doman's book, "How to Multiply Your Baby's Intelligence"--it will change you and your child's life immensely. Leave this stinted view of children's capabilities behind, and TEACH THEM--they are so hungry for learning!

Rating:
Summary: intelligence is NOT a bad thing!!!
Review: I have read this and similar books, such as "potty training for Yale", and their entire premise is ridiculous. Tiny children love to learn--anything they can, as much as they can, and as soon as possible. We are doing children a disservice by not meeting this sublimely human need. By the time children start formal education, it is actually much more difficult (and less fun!) for them to learn then it was when they were babies! For an inspiring and *scientifically sound* approach to the topic of early education, I IMPLORE you to first check out Glenn Doman's book, "How to Multiply Your Baby's Intelligence"--it will change you and your child's life immensely. Leave this stinted view of children's capabilities behind, and TEACH THEM--they are so hungry for learning!

Rating:
Summary: If you work with Preschoolers
Review: If you work with preschoolers, you probably have been presured to do activities and/or lessons that are not age appropriate. This book will help you explain what your are doing and why. It also will help you revise your program elimnating some activities and goals and replacing them with better activities and goals.

Rating:
Summary: Miseducation:Preschoolers at Risk, by David Elkind
Review: In the "Questions Parents Ask" section of this book Mr. Elkind is asked: "So what is going to happen? According to you, we are miseducating large numbers of young children, so what does this mean with regard to the future?"

Mr. Elkind answers: "I have no crystal ball...My guess is that the teenagers of the nineties will be more neurotic than teenagers today. They will show more obsessions, more compulsions, more phobias, more psychosomatic symptoms than do teenagers today. ...What I cannot really predict is the extent of the problem."

This book was published in 1987. The preschoolers of that time are today's teenagers - the same teenagers who are bringing guns to school and killing their teachers and classmates. While I believe the causes for these horrific behaviors are manifold, I also believe Mr. Elkind has made a valid point, he certainly has my attention.